Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 3 of 4 - Shea Parkside Estates - General Plan Amendment Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: )?�Ayproved- ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City C rk's Signature Council Meeting Date: October21, 2002 Department ID Number: PL02-35 `k-3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Q0 REQUEST FOR ACTION '~ SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS o ' SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City AdministratorW4V PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPO T NO. 97-2 (PARKSIDE ESTATES) �.�s ��n- , aoa -!'7 Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an .appeal by Mayor Cook of the Planning Commission's certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2. This application represents a request by Shea Homes to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with development on an approximate 49 acre vacant site for the purpose of constructing up to 208 homes (current project request is for 17.1 homes), associated infrastructure and private and public open space. The Planning Commission certified the Environmental Impact Report and staff is recommending the City Council also certify the document because the Environmental Impact Report adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. Fundinq Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Certify Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 by approving Resolution (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." ye h�- c - I REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-35 Planning Commission Action on September 24, 2002: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-2 BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1574 (ATTACHMENT NO. 2) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LIVENGOOD, KERINS, KOKAL, PORTER, SHOMAKER, STANTON NOES: HARDY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (Appellant's Request)." 2. "Continue the Appeal of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Ron Metzler, Shea Homes, 603 S. Valencia Ave., Brea, CA 92823 Location: 17301 Graham St. (West side of Graham Street, south of Kenilworth Drive, adjacent to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel) Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (EIR No. 97-2) represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the subdivision of approximately 49 acres of vacant land for the purpose of developing up to 208 single family residential units, associated infrastructure and private and public open space. The project includes the annexation of approximately five acres of unincorporated area into the City's jurisdiction, a general plan amendment, zoning map amendment and local coastal program amendment. The Draft EIR for the project was circulated for public review and comment in 1998. The New Alternatives to the Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment in 2001. The Final EIR, including the Response to Comments for both the Draft and the New Alternatives, was made available for public review and distributed to the City Council on August 2, 2002. The Response to Comments is contained in Volume I; the Final EIR, which includes both the Draft and New Alternatives in their entirety with errata, is located in Volume II; New Technical Appendices are provided in Volume IIA; and the verbal and written comments received in reponse to the Draft and New Alternatives are contained in Volume III. PL02-35 -2- 10/8/2002 11:17 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-35 B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on EIR No. 97-2 on September 10, 2002. The Planning Commission heard pubic testimony from 17 speakers, including the applicant and two representatives. The speakers raised concerns about traffic, geotechnical issues, fire department response times and flooding. The Planning Commission continued the item and requested that staff report back on nine items. On September 24, 2002, staff and the EIR consultants made a presentation on the nine items. The Planning Commission reopened the public hearing on EIR No. 97-2 and heard public testimony from the applicant and 11 other speakers. Three of the speakers spoke in favor of the proposed infrastructure improvements related to flooding because it would remove properties from the floodplain. The Planning Commission asked questions regarding geotechnical issues, wetlands, flooding, operation of Slater Channel and traffic. The Planning Commission voted to certify EIR No. 97-2. C. APPEAL: On October 3, 2002, Mayor Debbie Cook appealed the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR (Attachment No. 3). The appeal letter cites the adequacy of the EIR and lists eight specific issues: wetlands designation, construction impacts, traffic, noise, soils testing, drainage/hydrology, subsidence, and fire and emergency medical response. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed project. The issues discussed in the EIR are those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, all potentially adverse impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, and there are no unavoidable significant impacts. The Findings of Fact, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), review each of the impact areas and list the recommended mitigation measures, which are also included in the CEQA mitigation monitoring program (see companion report for Tentative Tract Map). Staff believes that the EIR is adequate and complies with the requirements of CEQA. The Planning Commission staff reports from September 10, 2002 (Attachment No. 4) and September 24, 2002 (Attachment No. 8) provide a detailed review of the EIR, its history and the various issues raised through the Planning Commission public hearing process. The analysis below focuses on the eight issues listed in the appeal letter. PL02-35 -3- 10/81200211:17 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-35 Wetlands Designation Wetlands are discussed in Section 5.8, Biological Resources, of the EIR. The analysis was based on correspondence from various agencies with wetlands jurisdiction and two technical studies: Wetland Determination Verification/Update by Tom Dodson & Associates in 1997 (focus on City parcel), included in the Draft EIR Technical Appendices; and Delineation of Wetlands (County Parcel) by LSA in 2002, included in the Final EIR Technical Appendices. Both delineations were prepared in response to comments from California Coastal Commission staff. Additional information is contained within the September 10, 2002 Planning Commission staff report, pages 7-8, and the Response to Comments, e.g. Response SG-5, page 3-12, Vol. I. City Parcel The City parcel has been farmed since the 1950s. However, there is an approximate 7.6 to 8.3 acre area that had previously been designated as wetlands (the size of the area has varied within prepared reports). This area is adjacent to the eucalyptus trees in the northwest corner of the site where the passive open space is proposed. The chronology below is based on information contained within the sources referenced above. - 1989: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delineated 8.1 to 8.3 acres of wetlands on the site in conjunction with a jurisdictional delineation for Bolsa Chica. - 1991: Dana Sanders completed a "Determination of Waters for the United States, including wetlands at Bolsa Chica, California." He concluded that there were no wetlands on the site based on several factors including that 1983 (upon which the EPA delineation was based) was recorded as the second highest rainfall ever and did not represent the average year. - 1992: the US Army Corps of Engineers issued a Prior Converted Cropland designation on the site. In order to receive this desigation, the property had to have been farmed prior to 1985, not meet specific hydrologic criteria and had not since been abandoned. - 1997: the Dodson report concluded that the site no longer meets any State or Federal agency's criteria for wetlands. - 1998: the State Dept. of Fish and Game (DFG) issued a letter stating they concur with the 1997 Dodson report conclusions that the site does not meet wetland criteria. - 1998: the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service issued a letter concurring with the Prior Converted Cropland designation. - 2001: California Coastal Commission staff issued a letter that recognizes the DFG concurrence that the site does not meet wetland criteria. County Parcel The County parcel, per information in the EIR, includes the following wetlands-related resources: 0.4 acres of EPA delineated pocket wetlands, 0.2 acres of patchy pickleweed and 0.36 acres of potential jurisdictional wetlands, which partially overlap the patchy pickleweed. As originally proposed, the project would have impacted wetland resources. However, the PL02-35 -4- 10/8/200211:17 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002'' DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-35 applicant's current request, Alternative 7 as modified by the Planning Commission with the elimination of Lot No. 4, completely avoids all wetland resources and provides a minimum 100 foot buffer to the potential jurisdictional wetlands. Staff believes that the EIR complies with the requirements of CEQA in its analysis of existing conditions and potential impacts to wetlands. The EIR has included a wetlands delineation for both the City and County parcels. The EIR clearly documents that there are designated wetlands on the County parcel and that these will not be impacted by the proposed project. The EIR further documents that there are no wetlands designated on the City parcel; this is based on consultation with Federal and State agencies with jurisdiction in wetlands designation. Construction Impacts Construction impacts are analyzed in six sections of the EIR: Section 5.3, Transportation/Circulation; Section 5.4, Air Quality; Section 5.5, Noise; Section 5.6, Earth Resources; Section 5.8, Biological Resources; and Section 5.9, Cultural Resources. The analysis of construction impacts reviews how construction of the project may impact surrounding property, residents or resources for each of these issue areas. Where necessary, the EIR includes recommended mitigation measures to address potentially significant impacts. For example, in the Air Quality section there are six recommended mitigation measures pertaining to construction of the project. As a result of comment letters on the EIR, the Response to Comments contains additional information pertaining to this issue, e.g. Response PMK-5, page 4-20, Vol. 1. Additional discussion of construction-related concerns is presented below in the Traffic, Noise and Subsidence sections of this RCA. Staff believes that the EIR adequately discloses potential impacts that may occur as a result of construction of the project. Traffic Section 5.3, Transportation/Circulation, of the EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of traffic related issues for the proposed project. The EIR Traffic Consultant, Darnell & Associates, has completed the following technical studies for the project: 1) Traffic Study, June 27, 1997 (Appendix B, Draft EIR Technical Appendices); 2) Revised Traffic Study prepared for Response to Comments, March 29, 2001 (Tab 1, Final EIR Technical Appendices); 3) Technical Memorandum prepared in response to questions, September 9, 2002 (Distributed at September 10, 2002 Planning Commission Study Session/Meeting). In addition, the Public Works Department prepared a Traffic Collision History Report, dated March 29, 2001, for the Response to Comments that is included in Tab 1 of the Final EIR Technical Appendices. Staff and the consultants believe that adequate analysis has been completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. PL02-35 -5- 10/8/2002 11:17 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-35 In response to questions regarding the adequacy and accuracy of the traffic study that was prepared in 1997, given that five years have elapsed since the EIR technical report was prepared, the traffic consultant prepared item 3 listed above. To complete this technical memorandum, included in Attachment No. 5 to this RCA, the consultant took new traffic counts on September 41h and 5th, 2002, i.e. when school was in session. As was discussed in the September 241h Planning Commission report, these data provide verification that traffic volumes in the area have not significantly changed since the original report was prepared. For example, for the segment of Graham between Kenilworth and Glenstone, the 2002 traffic count was 8,381 compared with the 1996 traffic count of 7,200. This is not a significant increase especially when consideration is given to the fact that traffic increases from "cumulative" projects such as Meadowlark and Holly Seacliff have already occurred. Accordingly, the new data show that the cumulative analysis contained in the March 21, 2001 report overestimated traffic volumes. In other words, based on the 2002 counts, long-term traffic impacts will be less than previously forecasted. The cumulative analysis can now be considered overly conservative as well because it is based on the previous assumption that 3,300 homes would be built by Hearthside Homes on the mesa, compared with the latest estimate of less than 390. In conclusion, staff believes that the EIR not only complies with the requirements of CEQA but clearly demonstrates that there will be no significant impacts associated with the project that cannot be adequately mitigated. The technical studies demonstrate that the recommended mitigation measures are still valid and no additional mitigation measures are required. Noise Section 5.5, Noise, of the EIR discusses existing conditions, potential impacts as they relate to construction noise and long-term changes in ambient conditions (e.g. as a result of traffic increases) and mitigation measures. Noise modeling was completed for the project in 1997 and 1998 and is presented in Appendix C of the Draft EIR Technical Appendices. Staff believes that the above referenced information and analysis adequately discloses potential impacts associated with the project as required by CEQA. The September 24th Planning Commission report, page 17, also contains information pertaining to potential noise impacts related to installation of a traffic signal on Graham Street at the project entry raised in a late communication. Finally, two other noise issues, related to haul route noise and airport noise, were raised in another late communication. Although CEQA does not require a written response to late communication, staff consulted the noise consultant, Giroux & Associates, regarding these items as well. With respect to potential noise impacts related to haul route traffic, the communication indicates that because traffic on Graham Street has increased since 1998 that noise impacts will be greater due to hauling and that haul route noise impacts were not analyzed. Although traffic noise is indeed cumulative, the higher current baseline traffic noted in the comment will actually better mask any haul truck increment than would a lower baseline. The relationship between noise levels and traffic volumes, however, is logarithmic. It thus takes a large increase in noise levels when background levels are already elevated. For purposes of analysis, the PL02-35 -6- 10/8/2002 11:17 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-35 noise contribution from 200 loads of fill in/out of the project site (400 total trips)was calculated for a 45 mph truck travel speed. The noise attributable to truck traffic and background traffic at 50 feet from the centerline is 62.4 dBA CNEL. The residential noise standard is 65 dBA CNEL. Thus, project-related haul truck traffic would create temporary noise travels that are well within City guidelines. The truck traffic itself adds 1.9 dBA CNEL to existing noise levels. Any increase of 3 dBA CNEL or greater is considered significant; thus, the potential noise from haul traffic traffic on Graham is also considered less than significant from this perspective. With respect to airport noise, CEQA Guidelines consider any project site within two miles of a public use airport to be potentially impacted by virtue of elevated background noise. The project site is located beyond the two mile airport noise "footprint." Any background aircraft noise was thus not taken into consideration because it is so low as to have minimal cumulative impact potential with any project-related noise source. Soils Testing The EIR Geotechnical Consultant, Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., has performed site investigation consistent with State guidelines and accepted industry practice. The site investigation (soils testing) has included 26 borings, 17 test pits and 65 Cone Penetrometer soundings. The consultants findings are presented in technical reports and memoranda contained within the EIR as follows: 1) Phase I Assessment, January 16, 1998 (Appendix E, Draft EIR Technical Appendices); 2) Geology Report, February 2, 1998 (Appendix E, Draft EIR Technical Appendices); 3) Supplemental Information prepared for Response to Comments, August 3, 1999, October 12, 2001 and June 13, 2002 (Tab 2, Final EIR Technical Appendices). These reports contain all boring logs and cone penetrometer test data as well as conclusions based upon the field work. Staff and the consultants believe that adequate soil testing has been completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. Drainage/Hydrology As has been documented in numerous technical studies and reports, existing drainage systems in the vicinity of the project are inadequate and the area experiences flooding. As described in the EIR, there are potential impacts associated with the project related to drainage and hydrology. Therefore, the project will be required to complete the following improvements: 1) construct three new storm drain lines (60 inch, 102 inch and 120 inch); 2) complete Channel improvements, e.g., sheetpile, along the site's developed edge; and 3) add two new pumps at Slater Pump Station. In addition, the project will be required to comply with the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in June 2002 with regard to floodproofing the homes. The CLOMR requires a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 4.6 ft. which is comparable with the BFE of 4.5 ft. analyzed for Alternative 7 (the applicant's request) in the EIR. PL02-35 -7- 10/8/2002 11:17 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-35 The drainage/hydrology analysis presented in the original Draft EIR included the improvements listed in items 1-3 above (then only one new pump) and was predicated on a relatively small increase (approximately one foot) in the site's elevation to comply with floodproofing regulations. Subsequently, in June 2000, an approximate watershed analysis was completed by the County of Orange. FEMA then issued a new floodplain map that resulted in the City requiring the site to be elevated to approximately 11 feet. In response, the applicant had prepared and submitted to FEMA a detailed flood insurance study that concluded that the flood hazard was substantially less. After approximately a one year review by FEMA (as well as City staff) and additional submittals to FEMA by the applicant, FEMA issued the above referenced CLOMR which lowered the required BFE to 4.6 ft. The analysis of potential impacts related to the new floodplain alternatives was presented in New Alternatives to the Draft EIR that was circulated for public review and comment in June 2001. In response to written and verbal comments at the Planning Commission level, staff compiled additional information related to drainage and hydrology. This was distributed at the September 10th Planning Commission Study Session/Meeting and is contained within Attachment No. 5 of this RCA. At the September 10th meeting, the Planning Commission requested clarification of several items related to drainage/hydrology. The September 241h Planning Commission report, pages 8-12 and page 14, contains this information. In addition, as part of the late communication for the September 24th meeting, the Planning Commission was provided a copy of the letter from the County of Orange regarding its position on the Slater Pump Station (provided within Attachment No. 10 to this RCA). Staff believes that the record clearly demonstrates that the EIR and associated documents contain a thorough analysis of potential impacts related to drainage and hydrology consistent with CEQA requirements. Moreover, the technical reports have undergone a level of scrutiny, due to FEMA's review, that is not typical for most EIRs that should further indicate that the level of analysis completed for the Parkside Estates project is adequate. Subsidence As disclosed in the EIR, groundwater has been observed below the project site at depths varying from approximately four feet to as much as 19 feet below ground surface (bgs). Dewatering will be required to prepare the site for construction of homes and associated infrastructure due to the groundwater depths. As a result of the dewatering process, in an unmitigated condition subsidence (settlement) can occur. Section 5.6, Earth Resources, of the EIR includes a description of the existing conditions that relate to subsidence, potential impacts associated with the dewatering aspect of the project and recommended mitigation measures. As a result of comment letters on the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments for the EIR contains additional information pertaining to this issue, e.g. Response DS-1, page 3-6, Vol. 1. In addition, the September 24th Planning Commission report, page 5, provides a summary of the existing conditions pertaining to subsidence and the recommended geotechnical measures to mitigate any potential impacts. PL02-35 -8- 10/8/200211:17 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-35 The summary indicates that the remedial grading will be setback from the north property line by at least 40 feet at the top of excavation and 50 feet at the bottom. Neither dewatering nor remedial grading will be required for the Paseo Park area, thus, activities will occur no closer than 40 feet to the north property line or 50 to 75 feet from existing residences. Because the remedial grading will be completed in relatively small (200± feet wide) segments which will allow replacement of the overexcavated volume within one to two days after achieving the overexcavation bottom, grading activities, including local dewatering efforts in proximity to any given adjacent property, will be complete within a few days at that location. Thus, timely refilling of the overexcavation voids will not affect the groundwater conditions below offsite residences. Although subsidence impacts are not expected for the properties to the north, the project includes a mitigation measure that requires monitoring the boundary conditions and adjusting dewatering activities immediately if monitoring wells show ground water level changes which may affect subsidence of adjacent properties. As part of their approval of the Tentatiive Tract Map for the project, the Planning Commission amended a condition that requires a geotechnical expert be on site daily during the dewatering process to monitor soil conditions. Staff believes that the proposed dewatering methods and mitigation measures are adequate and that sufficient analysis has been included in the EIR regarding potential subsidence impacts associated with dewatering. Fire and Emergency Medical Response The General Plan Amendment associated with this project, and analyzed in a separate report, includes the request to amend a figure in the Public Facilities and Public Serivices Element to remove a future fire station from the project site. The Fire Department has determined that a station at this location is not necessary but, rather, that the area is adequately served by three other fire stations: Station #6 — Edwards, Station #7 — Warner, and Station #8 — Heil (even after it is eventually relocated). Section 5.10, Public Services and Utilities, of the EIR details existing conditions, potential impacts and mitigation measures pertaining to the provision of Fire Department services. Errata pages to the Final EIR pertaining to this issue were distributed to the Planning Commission and City Council and made available to the public on August 30, 2002. These pages are also attached to the September 10th Planning Commission report, and a final correction to an errata page that was distributed at the September 10th meeting is contained within Attachment No. 5 to this RCA. Staff believes that the above referenced information and analysis adequately discloses potential impacts associated with the project as required by CEOA. In response to the questions regarding response times for the project site and vicinity raised through the Planning Commission review process, staff has included analysis in both the September 101h and September 24th Planning Commission staff reports. The September 10th report contains a memorandum from the Fire Department indicating that a fire station on the project site is no longer warranted and that there is adequate coverage for the area from other existing stations. The September 24th report, page 13, contains a description of the PL02-35 -9- 10/8/2002 11:17 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-35 General Plan goal for Fire Department response, location criteria for new fire stations and an overview of response times and driving time studies. Staff believes that a thorough analysis of the issues has been completed and that the EIR is adequate in this regard. E. SUMMARY Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 serves as an informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Parkside Estates project, alternatives which minimize those impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. Staff believes that the EIR fulfills the requirements of CEQA and recommends that the City Council certify EIR No. 97-2 because: 1) The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and 2) Identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. Environmental Status: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 was prepared by EDAW Inc., a consultant hired by the City to analyze the potential impacts to the project. The EIR must be certified prior to any action on Annexation No. 98-1, General Plan Amendment no. 98-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 94-6 and associated entitlements. The EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on September 24, 2002. The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. The EIR covers the proposed land use designation amendments and annexation, as well as, proposed development of the site. EIR No. 97-2 discusses potential adverse impacts in the areas of land use compatibility, aesthetics/light and glare, transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, earth resources, drainage/hydrology, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. PL02-35 -10- 10/8/2002 11:17 AM 1 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-35 Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Resolution No. 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574 certifying EIR No. 97-2 3. Appeal Letter from Mayor Debbie Cook dated October 3, 2002 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 10, 2002 5. Additional information submitted by Staff for September 10, 2002 Planning Commission meeting (includes additional traffic study data, revised Final EIR errata page and drainage/flooding information) 6. Late Correspondence received for the September 10, 2002 Planning Commssion meeting 7. Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated September 10, 2002 8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 24, 2002 9. Additional information submitted by Staff for September 24, 2002 Planning Commission meeting 10. Late Correspondence received for the September 24, 2002 Planning Commssion meeting 11. Correspondence received: subsequent W action by the Planning Commission RCA Author: MBB/SH PL02-35 -11- 10/8/200211:17 AM ATTACHMENT 1 ;0= o 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NUMBER 97-2 FOR THE PARKSIDE ESTATES PROJECT WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report (EIR)Number 97-2 was prepared to address the environmental implications of the proposed Parkside Estates Project. • On September 17, 1997, a Notice of Preparation for the draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research and to other responsible agencies. • On April 17, 1998, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of Completion for the draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse. • The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from April 17, 1998 to June 15, 1998, and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library. • on June 29, 2001, a Notice of Preparation for the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research and to other responsible agencies. • The New Alternatives to the Draft EIR were circulated for public review and comment from June 29, 2001 to August 12, 2001, and available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and The Planning Commission held public meetings on the EIR on September 10, 2002, and September 24, 2002 in which comments were received on the EIR; and The Planning Commission certified the EIR on September 24, 2002; and The City Council held a public meeting on the EIR on October 21, 2002 in which comments were received on the EIR, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the foregoing recitations,the following findings are hereby made; 1. The environmental analysis covers the areas of Land Use Compatibility, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality,Noise, Earth 02reso/parkside eir/10/8/02 I Res. No. 2002-97 Rio �„f " z�A 7�• .2oa�i.2,3 Resources, Drainage/Hydrology, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Services and Utilities. 2. As mitigated, there are less than significant impacts on Land Use Compatibility, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality,Noise, Earth Resources, Drainage/Hydrology, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Services and Utilities. 3. There are no significant unavoidable impacts. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby additionally find that the EIR identifies cumulative project impacts that are mitigated to a level considered less than significant. SECTION 3. Based upon the above findings, written comments and verbal testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds as follows: 1. At public hearings, the City Council considered public testimony, staff presentations, and Planning Commission and City Council reports on the EIR prepared for the project. 2. The EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects. The EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each of these impacts. SECTION 4. Based upon the above recitations, findings, and conclusions the City Council hereby determines: 1. Pursuant to Section 15090 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the City Council certifies that EIR 97-2 (SCH No. 97091051) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was presented to, and the information contained therein reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to reaching a decision on the Parkside Estates Project. The EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Huntington Beach acting as Lead Agency for the project pursuant to Pub. Res. Code Section 21082.1(c)(3). 02reso/parkside eir/10/8/02 2 Res. No. 2002-97...:�r a 2. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby certify EIR Number 97-2 (SCH No. 97091051), set forth in Section 3 above. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of October , 2002. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: AL,e — P✓l i la - - J Z City rfjrg City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITI D AND APPROVED: City Adml6istrator ViVtor of Planning 02reso/parkside eir/10/8/02 3 Res. No. 2002-97 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of October, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Green, Dettloff, Houchen, Bauer NOES: Boardman, Cook, Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None City Clerk and-ex-officio CI rk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 1574 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA,CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NUMBER 97-2 FOR THE PARKSIDE ESTATES-PROJECT WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report_(EIR) Number 97-2 was prepared to address the environmental implications of the proposed Parkside Estates Project. • On September 17, 1997, a Notice of Preparation for the draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research and to other responsible agencies. ■ On April 17, 1998, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of Completion for the draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse. • The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from April 17, 1998 to June 15, 1998, and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library. • On June 29, 2001, a Notice of Preparation for the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research and to other responsible agencies. ■ The New Alternatives to the Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from June 29, 2001 to August 12, 2001, and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the EIR on September 10, 2002 in which comments were received on the EIR;and NOW,THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach,California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the foregoing recitations,the following findings are hereby made:' 1. The environmental analysis covers the areas of Land Use Compatibility, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Earth Resources, Drainage/Hydrology, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Services and Utilities. 2. As mitigated, there are less than significant impacts on Land Use Compatibility, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Earth Resources, Drainage/Hydrology, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Services and Utilities. 3. There are no significant unavoidable impacts. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby additionally find that the EIR identifies cumulative project impacts that are mitigated to a Ievel considered less than significant. SECTION 3. Based upon the above findings, written comments and verbal testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Planning Commission further finds as follows: 1. At public hearings, the Planning Commission considered public testimony, staff presentations, and Planning Commission reports on the EIR prepared for the project. 2. The EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects. The EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each of these impacts. SECTION 4. Based upon the above recitations, findings, and conclusions the Planning Commission hereby determines: 1. Pursuant to Section 15090 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the Planning Commission certifies that EIR 97-2 (SCH No. 97091051) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was presented to, and the information contained therein reviewed and considered by, the Planning Commission prior to reaching a decision on the Parkside Estates Project. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby certify the EIR Number 97-2 (SCH No. 97091051), set forth in Section 3 above. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED, this 24th day of September, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Stanton, Kerins, Shcmaker, Livengood, Kokal, Porter NOES: hardy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: and Zelefsky, Secretary hairperson,Planning Commission NOTE TO FILE : The original , physical EIR 97 - 2 has been filed as an attachment to Resolution 2002 - 123 PARKSIDE ESTATES EIR #97-2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND NEW ALTERNATIVES TO THE DRAFT EIR VOLUME I �1 MIS 4 Prepared for: The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Prepared by: EDAW,Inc. c, July 2002 PARKSIDE ESTATES EIR #97-2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME II w_ ... , 311 uW� _ tN o Prepared for: The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Prepared by: EDAW,Inc. July 2002 PARKSIDE ESTATES EIR #97-2 FINAL EIR TECHNICAL APPENDICES VOLUME RA Prepared for: The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Prepared by: EDAW,Inc. ,y}} July 2002 PARKSIDE ESTATES EIR #97-2 COMMENT CARDS AND COMMENT LETTERS PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MAY 149 1998 & JULY 255 2001 VOLUME III imam- S 1 h Prepared for: The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Prepared by: EDAW,Inc. July 2002 ATTACHMENT 3 10/02/02 WED 21:09 FAX 714 841 4484 Cook/Fisher Z 001 City of Huntington Beach �` 6 ' `EAN, CA City Council Communication OCT -3 A g: O TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Debbie Cook, Mayor DATE: October 3, 2002 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PARKSIDE ESTATES FINAL EIF.t NO. 97-2,TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15377 (City)AND 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,ANNEXATION NO. 98-1, AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 96-5A& 511. I hereby request an appeal of the subject applications that were approved by the Planning Commission on September 24, 2002. This will allow the City Council to review the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report and related issues including: • Wetlands Designation • Construction Impacts • Traffic • Noise • Soils Testing • Drainage/Hydrology • Subsidence • Fire and Emergency Medical Response xc: Councilmembers Ray Silver, City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director ATTACHMENT 4 �� , City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director BY: Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Plannei<C­& DATE: September 10,2002 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-2 (Parkside Estates) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Ron Metzler, Shea Homes,603 S. Valencia Ave., Ste. 200, Brea, CA 92823 LOCATION: 17301 Graham St. (West side of Graham Street, south of Kenilworth Drive, adjacent to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (EIR No. 97-2): - Analyzes proposed development on an approximate 49 acre vacant site for the purpose of constructing up to 208 homes, associated infrastructure and private and public open space. - Documents potential impacts to land use compatibility, aesthetics/light glare, transportation/ circulation, air quality, noise, earth resources, drainage/hydrology, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. - Evaluates nine alternatives to the originally-proposed 208 unit project. - Concludes that Alternatives 1, 7 and 9 are the environmentally superior alternatives. - Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels for the original project and all of the alternatives. • Staff s Recommendation: - Certify EIR No. 97-2 because it adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1574(Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 and direct staff accordingly." B. "Continue certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 and direct staff accordingly." OB MM43 a; or c 1 (�\) BOLSA CHI" Zrn r..LIL t n A _1 W�1 � �� • O = I'I'E�W�O'U�1'S(T�"'��1 �( �-1 f 1 Ij"Ij_{r 1l 11 II T11� 12 L ct CAYELOT CA N i �y(r�'T��—��'7�j ''-7{y�'1� ` , y �� � '' 6EusYR1 [• PLE43AVIT * 1 rabuxl[ y 1"~ nnnru u 1 ('� ILL[r•r IN <T ANSNENS Qraham s7 CD _T..�D K CMOx111[f1 1 1 r MINIM Wks" (xrmu•Y . _ euaut.vu - 1 NLNiAxn y 1 - erAfinO1JA sloo>munr � GF A` p PROJECT PROPOSAL: Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (EIR No. 97-2) represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the subdivision of approximately 49 acres of vacant land for the purpose of developing up to 208 single family residential units,associated infrastructure and private and public open space. The project includes the annexation of approximately five acres of unincorporated area into the City's jurisdiction, a general plan amendment, zoning map amendment and local coastal program amendment. The accompanying Annexation No. 98-1, General Plan Amendment No. 98-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4, Tentative Tract Map Nos. 15377 and 15419, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-90 and Coastal Development Permit No. 96-18 are presented in two companion reports that will be considered by the Planning Commission after action on the environmental document. ISSUES: Subject Property And Surrounding Land Use, Zoning And General Plan Designations: LOCATIONGENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE, Subject Property: Residential Low Density RI-FP2 (Single Family Vacant/Agricultural and Open Space-Park Residential-Floodp lain Suffix), RA-CZ(Residential Agriculture-Coastal Zone) and on the unincorporated parcel MLR(Medium Low Density Residential) North of Subject Residential Low Density RI-FP2 (Single Family Single Family Property: Residential-Floodp lain Homes Suffix East of Subject Residential Low Density RI-FP2 (Single Family Single Family Property(across the Residential-Floodp lain Homes flood control Suffix) channel): South of Subject Residential Low Density RI-FP2 (Single Family Single Family Property: Residential-Floodp lain Homes Suffix) West of Subject Open Space-Park RA-CZ (Residential Vacant Property: Agriculture-Coastal Zone Suffix) General Plan Conformance. The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is Residential Low Density and Open Space-Park. The EIR is consistent with these designations and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: Staff Report—9/10/02 2 (02sr32) A. Land Use Element Goal LU2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. Mitigation Measures#1,Drainage/Hydrology; #1-18, Public Services and Utilities; and#2 and 4, Transportation/Circulation require construction of improvements including a traffic signal, storm drainage improvements and flood control protection to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure. Policy L U 2.1.7: Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities. Mitigation Measures #4 and 5, Public Services and Utilities, require that the developer pay required school fees and comply with a Mitigation Agreement with the affected school districts. Policy L U 4.1.2: Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. Mitigation Measures#1 and 2, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, require compliance with all applicable City plans,policies, and ordinances with respect to landscaping, including submittal of a landscape plan for the Graham Street frontage. Policy L U 5.1.1: Require that development protect environmental resources by consideration of the policies and standards contained in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and Federal (NEPA) and State(CEQA)regulations. During the development review process: a) Review any development proposal for the Bolsa Chica area to ensure that no development is permitted in Federally delineated wetlands;and b)Review any development proposed for non- wetland areas to ensure that appropriate setbacks and buffers are maintained between development and environmentally sensitive areas to protect habitat quality. The project EIR documents the former existence of 0.2 acres of remnant coastal salt marsh-type vegetation (patchy pickleweed), 0.4 acres of EPA delineated pocket wetlands and approx. 0.36 acres of potential jurisdictional wetlands on the parcel that is proposed for annexation. The patchy pickleweed and potential jurisdictional wetlands partially overlap. The EIR recommends that elimination of sensitive biological resources under the original project be mitigated by requiring replacement at a ratio of 4:1 within the Bolsa Chica lowlands or an alternative mitigation site, per the recommendation of the State Department of Fish and Game. With Alternatives 6-9,the patchy picklweed and EPA delineated pocket wetlands are not removed and no potential wetland is disturbed. Alternatives 6-9 increase the buffer from the EPA designated ESHA from 60 to 464 ft. Policy L U 9.1.2: Require that single-family residential units be designed to convey a high level of quality and character... Mitigation Measure #1, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, requires compliance with City comments/ conditions pertaining to design and layout of buildings and landscaping for the purpose of achieving a high quality design. Staff Report—9/10/02 3 (02sr321 B. Historic and Cultural Resources Element Objective HCR 1.1: Ensure that all the City's historically and archaeologically significant resources are identified and protected. The EIR documents all known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project and reports that the project has been designed to avoid sensitive resources, i.e. CA-ORA-83. Mitigation Measures #1-3, Cultural Resources, require completion of additional cultural resource testing for degraded sites CA- ORA-1308 and 1309, which are characterized as low significance sites specifically subsurface testing and, if necessary, consultation with appropriate groups and a cultural resource management plan. C. Circulation Element Policy CE 2.3.1: Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. Policy CE 2.3.4 Require that new development mitigate its impact on City streets, including but not limited to, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts, to maintain adequate levels of service. The EIR included a detailed traffic analysis to document potential impacts associated with the project. The EIR traffic studies demonstrate that with and without the project, the level of service on Graham Street will be level A, the best rating. Mitigation Measures #1-5, Transportation/Circulation, require the developer to complete various traffic improvements including restriping and installation of a traffic signal as well as payment of traffic impact fees to ensure that potential impacts are mitigated. D. Utilities Element Obiective U 1.2: Ensure that existing and new development does not degrade the City's surface waters and groundwater basins. The EIR Technical Appendices include a Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan that accounts for new 2001 permitting requirements. The EIR includes Mitigation Measures #2 and 3, Drainage/Hydrology, and#4, Earth Resources, to address water quality issues that may arise from dewatering, the requirement for a Water Quality Management Plan and compliance with NPDES requirements. Obiective U 3.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to protect life and property from flood hazards. The developer submitted a Conditional Letter of Map Revision(CLOMR) application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) regarding potential flooding for the site and surrounding area. FEMA approved the CLOMR on June 6, 2002._ The CLOMR is based on certain storm drain and flood control improvements being completed. Supporting documentation for the CLOMR and a discussion of potential impacts is included in the EIR. Mitigation Measure#1, Drainage/Hydrology, ,\I requires that the improvements be completed. Staff Report—9/10/02 4 (02sr32) E. Environmental Resources/Conservation Element Goal ERC 2: Protect and preserve significant habitats of plant and wildlife species, including wetlands for their intrinsic values. The EIR documents the presence of significant habitats. Mitigation Measure#2, Biological Resources, requires that the 0.2 acres of patchy pickleweed and the 0.2 acres of EPA delineated pocket wetlands (half of the total EPA wetlands) that was to be removed on the County parcel under the original project be replaced by the developer off-site at a 4:1 ratio, per the recommendation of the State Department of Fish and Game. However, with Alternatives 6-9, the patchy pickleweed and EPA delineated pocket wetlands are not removed, and the mitigation is not necessary; in addition, the 0.36 acres of potential jurisdictional wetlands on the County parcel are not disturbed. Policy ERC 2.1.10: Conduct construction activities to minimize adverse impacts on existing wildlife resources. Mitigation Measure #l, Biological Resources,requires that if construction takes place during normal breeding season for area raptors, a survey shall be conducted for active nests. If found, construction would be required to maintain a distance of 500 feet from the nests. F. Environmental Hazards Element Objective EH 1.1: Ensure that land use planning in the City accounts for seismic and geologic risk, including ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence, soil and slope stability, and water table levels. Objective EH 6.2: Minimize peat hazards through the regulation of construction. Mitigation Measures #1 and 2, Earth Resources, fulfill these objectives of the General Plan by requiring that the recommendations of the project geotechnical study be completed. G. Housing Element Policy H 3.1.1: Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the community, with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities. Mitigation Measure #1, Land Use Compatibility, addresses compliance with the City's affordable housing requirements. H. Coastal Element Polr.'cy C 1.2.3: Prior to the issuance of a development entitlement, the City shall make the finding that adequate services (i.e., water, sewer, roads, etc.) can be provided to serve the proposed development, consistent with policies contained in the Coastal Element, at the time of occupancy. Mitigation Measures #1,Drainage/Hydrology; #1-18, Public Services and Utilities; and#2 and 4, Transportation/Circulation require construction of improvements including a traffic signal, storm drainage improvements, flood control protection and a new sewer lift station and force main to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure. Staff Report—9/10/02 5 (02sr32) Poliev C 5.1.2: Where new development would adversely impact archeological or paleontological resources within the Coastal Zone, reasonable mitigation measures to minimize impacts shall be required. The EIR documents all known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project and reports that the project has been designed to avoid sensitive resources, i.e: CA-ORA-83. Mitigation Measures #1-3, Cultural Resources, require completion of additional cultural resource testing for degraded sites CA- ORA-1308 and 1309, which are characterized as low significance sites —specifically subsurface testing and, if necessary, consultation with appropriate groups and a cultural resource management plan. Policy C 6.1.1: Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at a minimum,prevent the degradation of water quality of groundwater basins,wetlands, and surface water. The EIR Technical Appendices include a Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan that accounts for new 2001 permitting requirements. The EIR includes Mitigation Measures#2 and 3, Drainage/Hydrology, and#4, Earth Resources, to address water quality issues that may arise from dewatering, the requirement for a Water Quality Management Plan and compliance with NPDES requirements. Policy C 7.1.2: Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. The EIR documents the presence of significant habitats. Mitigation Measure #2, Biological Resources, requires that the 0.2 acres of patchy pickleweed and the 0.2 acres of EPA delineated pocket wetlands (half of the total EPA wetlands) that was to be removed on the County parcel under the original project be replaced by the developer off-site at a 4:1 ratio, per the recommendation of the State Department of Fish and Game. However, with Alternatives 6-9, the patchy pickleweed and EPA delineated pocket wetlands are not removed, and the mitigation is not necessary;.in addition, the 0.36 acres of potential jurisdictional wetlands on the County parcel are not disturbed. Policy C 7.1.4: Require that new development contiguous to wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas include buffer zones. Buffer zones shall be a minimum of one hundred feet setback from the landward edge of the wetland... The EIR documents the presence of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) as designated by the State Department of Fish and Game. Alternative 7, the applicant's request, proposes a minimum distance, or buffer, of 464 feet from the nearest ESHA. A wetlands delineation prepared for the applicant for the unincorporated area in 2002 and included in the Final EIR concluded that there was a potential wetland area that overlapped the already documented patchy pickleweed. In the companion staff report regarding actual development of the site, staff recommends deletion of Lot No. 4 in the unincorporated area to achieve a minimum 100 ft. buffer from this potential wetland. Policy C 7.1.5: Notify County, State and Federal agencies having regulatory authority in wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitats when development projects in and adjacent to such areas are submitted to the City. kk Staff Report—9/10/02 6 (02sr32) As part of the EIR preparation, review and public participation processes, the City contacted the following agencies with respect to the potential existence of wetlands and ESHAs on the project site: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,National Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Department of Fish and Game and California Coastal Commission. Documentation and analysis regarding the presence or absence of these features on the project site is provided in the EIR. Obiective C 9.1: Provide and maintain water, sewer and drainage systems that adequately serve planned land uses at a maximized cost efficiency. Mitigation Measures #1, Drainage/Hydrology and#1-18, Public Services and Utilities require construction of improvements including storm drainage improvements, flood control protection and new sewer lift station and force main to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure. Zoning Compliance.Not applicable. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance. Not applicable. Environmental Status: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 was prepared by EDAW Inc., a consultant hired by the City to analyze the potential impacts to the project. The EIR must be certified by the Planning Commission prior to any action on Annexation No. 98-1, General Plan Amendment no. 98-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 94-6 and associated entitlements. The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. The EIR covers the proposed land use designation amendments and annexation, as well as, proposed development of the site. EIR No. 97-2 discusses potential adverse impacts in the areas of land use compatibility, aesthetics/light and glare, transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, earth resources, drainage/hydrology, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. Environmental Procedures The procedure that was followed during the preparation of Environmental Impact Report(EIR)No. 97-2 is outlined below: DATE ACTIVITY September 15, 1997 Staff conducted an initial study and determined that an EIR was necessary. September 15-17, 1997 A Notice of Preparation was sent to responsible agencies and filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify public of intent to prepare an EIR. A 30-day public review period was established. A notice of availability was sent to area property owners and interested parties. February 18, 1998 Staff, EDAW and applicant meet with State Dept. of Fish& Game (DFG) regarding wetland delineation for the property. Staff Renort—9/10/02 7 rmcrz'M DATE ACTIVITY October 9, 1997 A Scoping Meeting was held to take comments on the Initial Study and NOP. March 16, 1998 City received letter from DFG determining that site"does not meet wetland criteria." April 17, 1998 Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. Draft EIR available for public review and comment for 45-day public review period. April 20, 1998 At City Council public hearing on City's Annual Weed Abatement Program public testimony was offered regarding the potential existence of wetlands on the Shea property. A DFG staff person indicated that they may reconsider their position on the wetland issue. April 28, 1998 Meeting between City staff, DFG, U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service, California Coastal Commission staff, EDAW, Shea Homes, Mayor Dettloff, and Bolsa Chica Land Trust representative. DFG indicated any change in their previous position would be submitted in writing. May 4, 1998 Staff presented a status report on the project to the City Council. Bolsa Chica Land Trust requests an extension of the EIR public review period. May 14, 1998 Staff and EDAW held a public information meeting on the project. May 15, 1998 City Council determined that EIR public review period should be extended from 45-to 60-days. Notice of extended review period mailed. June 15, 1998 EIR public review period ended. DFG comment letter received recommending that mitigation for loss of degraded pickleweed habitat on the County piece be expanded from 0.8 to 2.0 acres; no change in wetland status indicated. June 199.8 City requests applicant to prepare a reduced density alternative for consideration in response to comments received on the Draft EIR. City and applicant begin meetings with County regarding a new watershed analysis under preparation for the County. City and EDAW begin preparation of response to comments, including preparation of addendum technical reports. June 14, 2000 FEMA issued a revised Flood Map for City, including applicant's property. City and applicant determine additional alternatives needed due to new Flood Map. June 29, 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document filed with State Clearinghouse and responsible agencies. Notice sent to area property owners. 45-day public comment period begins. July 25, 2001 Public information meeting on the New Alternatives document held. August 12, 2001 Public comment period on New Alternatives document ends. August 13,2001 City and EDAW begin completion of response to comments, including preparation of addendum technical reports. August 2, 2002 Response to Comments on Draft EIR and New Alternatives document, Final EIR, Additional Technical Appendices and Comments made available for public information and sent to Responsible Agencies. (CEQA requires Response to Comments be sent to Responsible Agencies 10 days prior to certification hearing.) August 27, 2002 Study Session for the Planning Commission on the EIR September 10, 2002 Public hearing before Planning Commission to Certify EIR No. 97-2. Staff Report—9/10/02 8 (02sr32) SummM o f Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 In the preparation of an environmental impact report,potential impacts associated with the proposed project(annexation, land use and zoning amendments, development-tentative tract maps, conditional use permit, etc.) are identified and analyzed pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. EIR No. 97-2 determined that all of the potential adverse impacts can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. A Project Impact Summary in the Final EIR(pages 2-3 through 2-19) describes the impact categories, descriptions of impacts, mitigation measures and levels of significance, and staff recommends these be incorporated into the project. The EIR also contains information mandated by CEQA on Alternatives to the Project (pages 6-1 through 6-108). Written responses prepared by City staff in conjunction with EDAW to all of the comments received at the two public information meetings and during the 60-day public review period on the Draft EIR and the 45-day public review period on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document have been completed and made available for public review. The Final EIR.,which integrates the Draft EIR and New Alternatives documents,incorporates changes (errata) in response to comments or for clarification/update. Environmental Board: The City's Environmental Board reviewed the DEIR and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR and provided two comment letters(letter#63, 1998 and letter#6, 2001) during the public review periods. The letters have been responded to in the Response to Comments. In summary,the Board commented on the following: impacts to Bolsa Chica lowland restoration,one traffic egress/ingress point,potential loss of wetlands on unincorporated parcel,use of fill from mesa and associated impacts to mesa,potential impacts to archaeological resources, potential privacy impacts, clarification about flooding impacts with only one side of the channel proposed for improvement, and a preference for Alternative 9. Coastal Status: The proposed project is within the Coastal Zone. The portion of the site within the City is an area of deferred certification and governed by the Coastal Act. The applicant has filed a request for a Local Coastal Program Amendment that would certify the site as a part of the adopted Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program. After the City approves the Local Coastal Program Amendment it is subject to the approval of the California Coastal Commission. The portion of the site within unincorporated Orange County would have been covered by the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program had it ultimately been approved. However,pending resolution of a law suit the standard of review for any development occurring within the area of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program is the Coastal Act. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns: The EIR was circulated to other Departments for review and comment. All Department comments and recommendations are incorporated into the EIR and its mitigation measures. No conditions of approval apply to the EIR. As development of the proposed project occurs, compliance with mitigation measures Staff Renort—9/10/02 9 (02sr32) will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is attached to the staff report for development of the site. Public Notification: For the August 27, 2002 Study Session notices were sent to property owners of record within a 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property, applicant, interested parties and individuals/organizations that commented on the environmental documents. For the September 10,2002 public hearing, legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on August 29,2002, and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix),applicant, interested parties and individuals/organizations that commented on the environmental documents. As of September 5, 2002, three communications supporting or opposing the request to certify the EIR have been received (Attachment No. 4). Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATES: EA Application Submitted: October 8, 1996 September 27,2002(Within one year of complete Draft EIR: April 17, 1998 application with up to 90 day reasonable extension New Alternatives to the Draft: June 29,2001 allowed) ANALYSIS: The analysis section provides an overview of the EIR and its conclusions, a review of the project alternatives and a summary of the response to comments. EIR Overview The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed project. The issues discussed in the EIR are those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The EIR discusses potential adverse impacts in 10 issue areas. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, all potentially adverse impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, and there are no unavoidable significant impacts. The Findings of Fact, as required by CEQA, review each of the impact areas and list the recommended mitigation measures (see companion report for Tentative Tract Map). A summary of key issues and mitigation measures as a result of the environmental impact report process is provided below. ♦ Land Use Compatibility The EIR indicates that potential impacts related to land use compatibility are limited to the provision of affordable housing. The recommended mitigation measure is to have the developer comply with Staff Renort—9/10/02 10 (02sr32) the City's affordable housing requirements, which require submittal of an affordable housing plan prior to recordation of a final map. ♦ Aesthetics/Light and Glare Potential impacts associated with aesthetics/light and glare arise from the development of a site currently used for agricultural purposes and the introduction of new lighting sources into the area. The EIR includes seven mitigation measures regarding these issues. The mitigation measures address landscaping and site design,bikeway planning, lighting plans and the use of non-reflective materials. In addition, Alternatives 6-9 require elevation of the building pads for floodproofing purposes. However, this does not warrant additional mitigation measures due to the revised site design that increases the separation between the existing Kenilworth homes and the proposed homes by 108 to 119 ft. including a 50 ft. wide paseo park,increases the amount of open space and decreases the number of units. These alternatives also do not require the removal of any of the Eucalyptus trees that were proposed for removal on the unincorporated parcel with the original project making the tree replacement mitigation (measure#3) unnecessary. As part of the Response to Comments,the EIR also contains a headlight study, visual privacy study and visual simulations that conclude no significant impacts associated with the project. ♦ Transportation/Circulation Potential impacts to transportation/circulation stem from the trips associated with construction and occupancy of the project. There are five mitigation measures which address these impacts. Specific improvements required include: 1) constructing a traffic signal at Graham and"A" Streets, 2) restriping Graham Street from Glenstone to Warner, 3) payment of traffic impact fees and 4) submittal and approval of a haul route plan to Public Works. The traffic study concludes that an acceptable level of service (A or B) will exist on surrounding streets. In addition, there will be adequate ingress/egress for Kenilworth Street residents due to the restriping of Graham; the relocated project entry also allows for sufficient stacking(approximately nine cars) between the signal and Kenilworth Street. In response to questions raised at the Study Session, the original traffic study for the project was completed in 1996,with traffic counts done in October. The baseline, or existing,condition examined traffic conditions(counts) at that time. Thus, impacts associated with nearby Marine View School traffic were included as school was in session (1996 enrollment of 715). The baseline analysis also included traffic associated with the Meadowlark Commercial Development as that project was constructed in 1994 (Ralph's Grocery opened in October 1994). The traffic study then analyzed the existing 1996 condition plus the project and analyzed short-term cumulative impacts [existing condition plus project plus Meadowlark residential(Summerlane) and Holly Seacliff]. In terms of analyzing the short-term cumulative situation, the traffic study is conservative: it assumed 350 Summerlane units when only 313 were ultimately approved/constructed, and it assumed 2,580 units in Holly Seacliff when less than 2,350 are anticipated in the Holly Seacliff area including Ellis- Goldenwest. In terms of the 2020 traffic projection,based on direction from the City, the traffic study used Bolsa Chica Project Traffic Impact Analysis completed in 1994,which assumed a substantially larger Bolsa Chica development than is currently being considered. Staff believes the traffic study adequately analyzes potential impacts associated with the project as well as the cumulative impacts associated with area development. Even though there has been an increase in Marine View Staff Renort—9/10/02 i 1 (02er19) enrollment(2002 enrollment of 793, 11%increase, as well as the higher enrollment of 823 in 1999), this is more than offset by the conservative estimates assumed for surrounding development. ♦ Air Quality Short-term construction activities and long-term changes in traffic generation can result in air quality impacts. There are eight recommended mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts from construction to a less than significant level and minimize long-term impacts including synchronization of traffic lights and use of energy saving features in the homes as well as construction measures to reduce short-term impacts. ♦ Noise Potential noise impacts relate to short-term construction activities and long-term changes in ambient conditions related to the public park. Two mitigation measures address construction related noise requiring noise reduction for construction equipment and a noise mitigation plan. The last mitigation measure requires that if new wall are constructed between existing homes and the proposed homes or along Graham that they maximize noise attenuation. As discussed in the Tentative Tract staff report, staff is not recommending a new wall be constructed along the north property line; however, a new wall along Graham would be built and would be required to comply with this mitigation measure. ♦ Earth Resources The project site is an area characterized by loose, compressible soils, with varying degrees of corrosivity, in the upper layers and peat within five feet below ground surface (bgs). Due to the nature of the soils there is the potential for liquefaction. In addition, ground water(perched water, not the water table) was encountered at six feet bgs. Given the site's history of agricultural production since the 1950s, the EIR also indicates the possibility of pesticide residue in the soil. The EIR identifies six mitigation measures specific to grading and construction of the project because of these factors. The mitigation measures are designed to minimize or avoid impacts related to compressible materials, ground subsidence,�dewatering, corrosive soils,pesticides and seismic activity. The mitigation measures would require overexcavation of loose/soft, compressible soils to depths varying from five to 19 feet, use of surface pumps and monitoring of boundary conditions during dewatering. The project would also be required to comply with Uniform Building Code requirements and complete a Phase II assessment. ♦ Drainage/Hydrology Existing drainage systems in the vicinity of the project are inadequate and the area experiences flooding. Impacts associated with the project include increased runoff, i.e. drainage,potential impacts to new homes due to flooding and water quality impacts associated with the runoff. The EIR identifies three mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The project will be required to complete the following improvements: 1) construct three new storm drain lines(60 inch, 102 inch and 120 inch); and 2)complete Channel improvements, e.g., sheetpile, along the site's developed edge. (It should be noted that the existing 60" line along the northerly property line will be used to drain the paseo park area or a local drain will be installed for the paseo park.) In addition,the project will be required to comply with the Conditional Letter of Map Revision(CLOMR) issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency with regard to floodproofing the homes. The CLOMR Staff Reuort—9/10/02 12 (02sr32) requires a Base Flood Elevation(BFE) of 4.6 ft. which is comparable with the BFE of 4.5 ft. analyzed in Alternatives 7 and 9. Finally, with regards to water quality, the project will be required to complete a Water Quality Management Plan and comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. In response to questions raised at the Study Session regarding water quality, the EIR Technical Appendices include an Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis prepared in 1998 as well as an Addendum prepared in February 2002 to address the new permitting requirements.adopted in 2001 by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The EIR documents that the project will treat the "first flush"event consistent with regulatory requirements. The "first flush"treated would include runoff from the project as well as an existing 21.8 acre developed area to the northwest. Based on the analysis, it is predicted that pollutant loads to Slater Channel after development would be less than existing levels by approximately 45 percent. Thus,the treatment improvements proposed by the project will result in an improved water quality condition. Staff believes that the EIR adequately analyzes potential impacts associated with drainage/hydrology. ♦ Biological Resources The Draft EIR concluded that the original project could result in potential impacts to biological resources due to proximity of raptor nesting sites to areas of construction and the loss of 0.2 acres of patchy pickleweed and 0.2 acres of EPA delineated pocket wetlands on the unincorporated parcel. Two mitigation measures were recommended. The measures are designed to lessen impacts by limiting the location of construction during nesting season and by requiring replacement of the sensitive biological resources with preservation and enhancement of two acres of appropriate habitat per the State Department of Fish and Game. However, Alternatives 6-9 avoid these biological resources due to fewer units on the unincorporated parcel, making the replacement mitigation unnecessary if one of those alternatives were approved. In addition,no eucalyptus trees would be removed in this area with these alternatives. The Final EIR Technical Appendices also include an updated wetland delineation for the unincorporated parcel in response to comments from the Coastal Commission. The study concludes that there are 0.36 acres of potential jurisdictional wetlands on this parcel that partly overlap the pickleweed area. No additional mitigation measures are required because the applicant's revised request(Alternative 7)does not propose construction/disturbance to this area. ♦ Cultural Resources Potential impacts to cultural resources were analyzed given the location of all or a part of three archaeological sites on the project site. Two of the sites (CA-ORA-1308 and 1309)were considered of very low significance and very degraded; the third site(CA-ORA-83) is located on a portion of the site proposed to remain as open space. In response to comments on the Draft EIR, the original project was reduced by two units upon additional site investigation and cross-checking of the tentative maps with CA-ORA-83. Thus, the Final EIR reflects a total unit count of 206 for the "original"project instead of 208. The EIR recommends three mitigation measures for the two degraded sites that 1) require a subsurface investigation, 2) if necessary,based on the results of the subsurface investigation, a cultural services management plan, and 3) retention of an archeologist for a pre-grading conference and monitoring. Staff Revort—9/10/02 13 ln2sr3�1 ♦ Public Services and Utilities Impacts to Public Services and Utilities may result 1n several areas: in 1998 the project was expected to be beyond the Fire Dept.'s five minute response time goal due to the relocation of Station#8; there will be an increased number of calls to the Police Dept.; there will be increased demand on school facilities; and additional utility services (water, sewer, electricity, etc ) will be required. There are 18 recommended mitigation measures to ensure that no significant impacts result to public services and utilities. The measures speak to conservation of resources, payment of school fees, compliance with Fire Dept. requirements in addition to provision of fire sprinklers throughout the project, consultation with the Police Dept. and construction of a new sewer lift station and force main. In response to Study Session questions regarding Fire Dept. response times, the Dept. has provided a memorandum (Attachment No. 5) and has explained that with the construction of Station#6, the area will not be deficient; accordingly, staff has prepared three errata pages for the Final EIR(Attachment No. 6). Alternatives A range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project was identified in Section 6.0 of the Draft EIR pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. With the circulation of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document in 2001, four new alternatives were added. The discussion of alternatives focuses on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental impacts, or reducing the impacts to a level of insignificance even if the alternatives would hinder the attainment of project objectives or would be more costly. Thus, not all of the alternatives are carried forward for analysis The analysis concludes that Alternative 7, the currently requested project, and Alternative 9 are environmentally superior alternatives. A table summary of key issues for the original project and the alternatives that were carried forward in the EIR is presented below. A discussion of all the alternatives follows. Alternatives Under Consideration in the EIR Original Alt. 1 Alt. 5 Alt. 7 All. 9 Project No project( Alternate 171 Units 161 Units 208 units No development Roadway w/BFE of 4.5 ft. '_ w/BFE of 4.5 ft. Issue Alignment B (Applicant's Request) Provides new residential ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ opporturaties Improves infrastructure for ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ existing as well as new development Avoids all sensitive V/ biological resources Compatible with adjacent development ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ and property Impacts mitigated to level of ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ insignificance Environmentally �/ �/ V/ Supenor Note: Although Alternatives 6 and 8 (with BFE of 10.9 ft.)were camed forward for consideration in the EIR; they are not necessary due to the CLOMR approved by FEMA on June 6, 2002 that established a BFE of 4.6 ft. Staff Renort—9/10/02 14 rr»cr zM Alternative 1 -No Project/No Development According to the analysis presented in the EIR, the No project/No development alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However,according to CEQA guidelines, if the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project"alternative, the EIR shall also identify the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The No project/No development alternative would not meet the basic project objectives outlined in Section 3.0 (Project Description)of the EIR. This alternative would not meet the development objectives of the applicant, nor would it accomplish City objectives for new residential development and providing infrastructure improvements to accommodate demands of existing development as well as new development. Alternative 2 -Development Under Existing Zoning This alternative was presented in the Draft EIR in the context of the original project. It assumed maximum buildout of the site per the zoning code which would allow a total of 367 units. This alternative was not carried forward for additional analysis because it would result in greater impacts than the original 208 units and did not meet the project objectives. Alternative 3-Alternative Location This alternative was eliminated from further consideration in the Draft EIR due to the fact that there were no other sites in the City with similar characteristics to the project site including size, landform and amenity opportunities. Although the Holly Seacliff area was evaluated at the time, there were no undeveloped or unentitled properties in that area that could accommodate the proposed project. Alternative 4—Alternative Park Site Location This alternative was suggested during the scoping meeting for the project and assumes that the neighborhood park would be located adjacent to Graham Street. This alternative was not carried forward . for several reasons: this alternative separates the park from the passive open space at the northwest corner of the site which is already designated for Open Space-Park in the General Plan and results in a less effective open space amenity; it places neighborhood park activity next to Graham, an arterial,which has safety implications and changes the nature of the park;and it would result in greater impacts to cultural resources as homes would be constructed where the original project proposed the park. Alternative 5—Alternative Roadway Connections This alternative,was also suggested during the scoping meeting. The alternative involves constructing a roadway connection from the project site to Bolsa Chica Street for the purpose of providing a second vehicular outlet. Three roadway alignments were considered. Roadway alignments A and C were eliminated from consideration because they were not technically feasible due to potentially unsafe traffic conditions at Bolsa Chica Street; they also did not reduce impacts of the original project and created new impacts. Roadway alignment B is technically feasible and therefore carried forward for consideration. However, it would cut through privately owned property,not controlled by the applicant, and would essentially eliminate the property's development potential. It would also require substantial cuts, could result in sight distance constraints and does not reduce impacts of the proposed project. Staff Renort-9/10/02 15 (02sr32) Alternatives 6-9—Reduced Density Alternatives with Specified Based Flood Elevations (BFEs) These alternatives were developed in response to comments on the Draft EIR to reduce potential impacts of the project in the unincorporated area of the site and in response to the issuance of a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)by FEMA in June 2000. The alternatives were circulated for public review and comment in 2001 in the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. Alternatives 6 and 8 reflect the City's interpretation of the 2000 FIRM and require a BFE of 10.9 ft. Alternatives 7 and 9 reflect the results of a detailed watershed analysis submitted by the applicant to FEMA and require a BFE of 4.5 ft. In terms of the reduced density component, Alternatives 6 and 7 reduce the number of units in the unincorporated area from 27 to nine;Alternatives 8 and 9 reduce the number of units from 27 to 0. On June 6,2002 FEMA approved the applicant's Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) request and established a BFE of 4.6 ft. for the site. Thus, Alternatives 6 and 8 are no longer necessary. Alternatives 7 and 9 with a very similar BFE of 4.5 ft. are still viable. Alternative 7 (the applicant's request) and Alternative 9 are environmentally superior to the original project. They eliminate impacts to biological resources, improve aesthetics by adding a 50 foot wide paseo park between the existing homes along Kenilworth and the proposed homes, increase the amount of open space by at least six acres, increase the separation between the Kenilworth homes and the new homes by 108 to 119 feet,result in a minimum 18 percent reduction in average daily trips and do not create any new significant impacts. It should be noted, however,that Alternative 7 meets the objectives of the City and the applicant more so than Alternative 9. Public Comments on the Draft EIR The City of Huntington Beach received a substantial number of comments on the Draft EIR and also received a number of comments on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. In total, 110 separate individuals, agencies and organizations submitted verbal or written comments on the project. The comments focused on numerous issues, including: biological resources,traffic,flooding, impacts to Bolsa Chica, cultural resources, construction impacts and water quality. The original project was modified in response to comments, including the new alternatives that were developed, and staff has responded to all comments received in the Response to Comments. The Final EIR includes revised text sections as a result of the comments. Key modifications to the project in response to comments include: ♦ Biological Resources. In response to comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Department of Fish and Game (DFG), California Coastal Commission and Bolsa Chica Land Trust: - Reduced Density Alternative Concept Plan developed;unincorporated development reduced from 27 units to nine units to avoid any removal of eucalyptus trees or patchy pickleweed. - Revised a mitigation measure requiring mitigation for loss of patchy pickleweed and EPA delineated pocket wetlands in association with the original project per DFG recommendation. ♦ Transportation/Circulation. In response to comments: - Project entry relocated approximately 150 ft. north and project entry redesigned to increase amount of queuing on site. - Traffic study revised to include cumulative impacts associated with the Summerlane project. Staff Renort—9/10/02 16 (02sr321 ♦ Drainage/Hydrology. In response to comments from the County of Orange and in response to a new FIRM issued by FEMA in June 2000: - Alternatives 6-9 created and circulated for public comment. - Applicant prepared a new flood insurance study, subsequently approved by FEMA,which establishes BFE for the site and surrounding area that results in substantial reduction in floodplain. ♦ Cultural Resources. In response to comments regarding CA-ORA-83: - Project archaeologist resurveyed site and concluded that two lots should be removed to ensure no disturbance to resource. Original project reduced from 208 to 206 units. ♦ Aesthetics/Light and Glare. In response to comments regarding potential impacts from new development: - Visual simulations, Privacy Study(views from new homes to existing Kenilworth homes), and Headlight Study(impacts from headlights given elevated pad sites) were prepared and included in the response to comments. No significant impacts result. SUMMARY: Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 serves as an informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Parkside Estates project, alternatives which minimize those impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify EIR No. 97-2 because: ■ The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and ■ Identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. ATTACHMENTS: l. Resolution No. 1574 (Final EIR No. 97-2) 2. Final EIR No. 97-2, includes 10 replacement/missing pages distributed August 30, 2002 and Response to Comments(under separate cover—not attached) 3. Technical Appendices for Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (under separate cover—not attached) 4. Letters in Opposition and/or Support 5. Memorandum from Fire Department, dated September 4, 2002 6. Errata pages to Final EIR SH:MBB:rl Staff Renort—9/10/02 17 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 FINAL EIR NO. 97-2 IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: *City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 3rd Flr., 2000 Main Street *Huntington Beach Central Library, 7111 Talbert Ave. *Helen Murphy Branch Library, 15882 Graham St. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 TECHNICAL APPENDICES FOR EIR NO. 97-2 ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: *City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 3rd Flr., 2000 Main Street *Huntington Beach Central Library, 7111 Talbert Ave. *Helen Murphy Branch Library, 15882 Graham St. S?"'tT"mod" i,r!°'►Si 9 Oi J 6�0 t' A� Q H�t " .._7 Comments on Parkside Project EIR CENE AUG 2 6 2002 Submitted by IN& &Mrs. Sing Joe Kong :5402 Kenilworth Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 To Ms. Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 August 23, 2002 These are our additional comments on the proposed Shea homes Project after we have reviewed the four-volume RTC packages (Volumes I,II,HA and III)made available through our Library System. The comments will be directed toward four specific concerns. Concern I relates to the traffic at the intersection of Graham and Kenilworth. Concern II pertains to the drainage at the northern boundary of the proposed project. which is adjacent to our property. Concern III addresses the effects of excavating; dewatering, back-filling, compacting and grading of the project on the subsidence ofour backyard, and finally Concern IV reflects our'personal perception of the security Iof our home during all phases of the project construction. Before we begin the comments, we like to make it clear that we are not challenging the right to build on their land by the developer. We do,however, want to make sure that the proposed project does not adversely affect the environment which we enjoyed so much during the last thirty-si<Y years. We sincerely hope that our concerns will bring about the corrective measures to minimize the impact, by the proposed project,on the safety and quality of our life. A detailed comment on each concern follows: Concern I With regard to the"Response to SJK-4 Comment"p.4-7. Section 4.1, Vol I. Response to Continents on the Draft EIR and the New alternatives to the Draft EIR,we took notice of statement that the signal at the project access street, Street A. will "cause gaps in traffic, which will assist motorists on Kenilworth and Pendleton to gain access to 1 w Graham St. during peaks hours" This statement appeared in many places in Vol 1. To name a few: Comments on BO-5 (p.3-90),on SG-4 (p.3-11),on DK-I (p.3-28), and again on ids&JT-2 (p. 3-55). We can not comprehend the existence of"naps". It is our opinion that the signalized intersection at `A' Street and Graham will not mitigate the problem at Kenilworth and Graham. Quite the contrary-, it will worsen the situation With the traffic signal located at `A" Street, a mere distance of approximately 250 feet separates `A' and Kenilworth. It is not hard to visualize the difficulty experienced by the motorists on Kenlworth to safely exit to merge with the northbound traffic on Graham regardless of the color of the traffic light at `A' Street.Bear in mind that, currently, even without the traffic light at `A' St.,the normal peak hour traffic on both north- and south-bound lanes on Graham :is heavy. The traffic is generated by motorists in the immediate communities bordering Graham Street as well as Slater Ave. and the nearby Edward Hill area. Even though it is not quite bumper to bumper, the spacing of motor vehicles traveling in both directions is such that it is hazardous for a motorist on Kenilworth to thread through the southbound traffic on Graham and turn left to merge with the northbound traffic coming down the bridge over the EGGW channel at a higher rate of speed. Now, let us bring the traffic light at `A' back into the discussion. Consider the scenario of a red light:for `A' Street motorists. There will be no car coming out from the project. But the motorists at Kenilworth will face the same hazard entering into the northbound Ianes on Graham as described above. For this scenario, therefore,the light at `A' does not really provide a `gap'. Now, consider the scenario of a green light for the motorist on`A', some of whom may turn right toward Slater Ave. while others may turn left onto the northbound lane on Graham. As far as the motorists on Kenilworth are concerned,these `A'-Street motorists might as well be coming from the neighboring Edward Hill and Slater and thus present them, the Kenilworth drivers, the same hazardous driving condition described above. In addition, cars traveling southbound on Graham are stacking up on account of the red light at `A'. Assuming a"Do Not Block Intersection"or"Keep Intersection Clear" narking to be placed at the intersection, yes, there will be a gap in the southbound traffic lane on Graham allowing the Kenilworth motorist to enter.the intersection. But this motorist does not have a clear view of the northbound traffic initiating fi-om 'A' Street because his view is blocked by the line of southbound traffic on Graham waiting for the light at"A' to turn A mDiiy A M• s 6 w m- •—.� .A —A �♦ green. Therefore the so-called gap really does not permit a "safe" access for the Kenilworth motorist. And so, we ask"Where are the gaps?" Concern II This is our comment on the response to our comment SJK-2, p.3-105,Vol 1. The referenced response stated that "existing storm drain must remain functional until a replacement system can be constructed". This statement implies that the current 601' RCP will eventually be abandoned. The implication is further reinforced by the drainage layout plan shoNvn in Exhibit 42, Vol II EIR Final Report, which depicts the current 60" drain to be intercepted at the northwest corner of the proposed project and abandoned. The "abandoned"drain is also shown in Figure 4.1 (Developed Drainage Layout Based on Hunsaker&Associates Storm Drain Plan)and Figure 6,1 (Modification of Storm Drain Plan and Concept of Water Quality Control Plan)as appeared in the Final EIR Vol. IIA Technical Appendices. In subsequent charts Exhibit 58 and Exhibit 71 of Vol.11, the interception of the current 60" drain was again noted,but no mention was.made on the abandonment of the current 60"line beyond the point of interception That portion of the line was clearly shown in these Exhifbits. To add to the uncertainty(in our mind)of the status of this 60"drain,Mr. Scott Hess, the Planning Manager, indicated during a Planning Commission Study Session on August 13,2002,which we attended,that the drain will continue to be used. A clarification appears to be in order. If the existing 60"RCP were indeed abandoned for a replacement system at a later date, then the sectional views of the Pasco Park(Exhibit 74a, Vol. II)are incorrect because a drain line was clearly shown to receive the water run-off from the Pasco Park area. A more serious consequence clearly indicates that, without the 60"drain, all the water run- off from the higher ground in and around the Pasco Park would gravitate to the lowest point in the Park, which is the bottom of our wall. This, in our opinion, is a serious defect in the Drainage Plan and creates a grave consequence to us. That is why-we need a clarification. Concern 111 Reference is made to the PMK-5 response on p.4-20 of Vol. II Final EIR, which stated in part "Evaluation of the causes of past distress to existing properties is beyond project's purview. The grading plans for the new alternatives phace the Pasco 3 Park, a 50400t.wide passive land use, between the existing properties on the north and "B" Street. Neither dewatering nor remedial grading will be required for that area. Trucks deliverim, rock and/or soil during the gradinrr operation. as well as heavy earth moving equipment, will thus be removed from the existing properties by 50 feet of more. This lone will greatly reduce the vibrations.that conceivably could be realized on adjacent properties as a result of grading and/or construction activities. Consequently, these grading activities are expected to have no impact on northerly adjacent properties" First of all, we for one do not expect the contractor to evaluate the causes of past distress to our properties. Secondly, we do not share the opti nistic expectancy of the contractor's geotechnical consultant that there is no impact on our property. We can not accept such vaguely worded statement of"greatly reduced"Hew greatly is greatly? We are dealing with an impact, which could be detrimental to our valued procession, our home. As such, the impact should not be lightly treated and deposed off with a few chosen words. Instead, it should be quantified. It is a known fact that the soil subsidence has been occurring in our as well as our.neighbor's backyards ever since we moved in our present residence. It is a highly undesirable phenomenon. !admittedly the rate of subsidence does not appear to be alarmingly fast (the footing of our back wall has sunk approximately 17 inches at the eastern end and about 1-2 inches at the western end in thirty-six years). We certainly do not want to see this condition be aggravated by whatever ground preparations to be performed for the project,which include overexcavating, dewatering, refilling, compacting and grading including a landfill operation amounting to 583,000 cubic yards(PMK 5 response,p.4-22). The subsidence of our yard away From the back wall, the concrete patio specifically, is also evident, although it is of a.much less degree than the wall. The subsidence manifests itself in the forms of hairline cracks on the surface of the concrete and concentrates in the eastern end of the patio. Again, we must reiterate that we do not intend to ask anyone to evaluate the cause of past distress. We bring forth this discussion for a reason. Historically, ever since we took our residency 36 years ago, the land behind us is always empty. During its ownership by the Southern California DWP, it was occasionally plowed by the farmers as a bean field. The farming activities have increased perceptively ever since Shea Homes purchased the land. Many different hinds of vegetables are grown 4 these all year around. We have since observed the cracks started to increase in size as well as raise to form steps at the eastern end. At the central portion and the western end of the patio, hairline cracks began to show and eventually became bigger. We strongly believe that the problem of our patio is essentially caused by the accumulated ground movements as a result of the vibration induced by the farming vehicle/equipment. We so believe because we felt the earth shook as the vehicles passing back and forth behind us. Bear in mind that these are the farming vehicles. Compare to the huge scrapers, backhoes, loaders, lowboys, excavators, water trucks, concrete trucks and transit mixers to be utilized by the project (Ref p.4-22, Vol ID,the farming vehicles would look like toys. Based on various responses to the written and/or verbal comments, it can be surmised that the land, the bean field, will undergo significant perturbation as a result of the grading preparation by the proposed project. As an example, part of the response to RWQCB-3 through RWQCB-5 on p.4-92 of Vol II Final EIR is quoted below: "According to the project geotechnical consultant, the recommended grading process includes overexcavation of loose/soft, compressible soils to depths varying from 5 to 19 feet"....."The grading and construction dewatering effort will consist of a combination of several techniques. The primary technique,which will be used in proximity to the northerly project development limit, will be initiated approximately 40 feet south of the north boundary and will consist of accomplishing the excavation of the upper 4f feet with conventional earth moving equipment (scrapers). At that point, excavation of wetter materials will be accomplished with a large excavator(backhoe). The excavation will predominately be 10 feet deep or less except for the extreme easterly one-third of the boundary where removal will be on the order of 15 feet. Dewatering of this northerly boundary area will be accomplished by surface pumps within the excavation. The excavation will be segment in approximate 200 x 200 feet f increments that will be refilled with a mixture of materials from an adjacent excavation and drier import materials as needed. Within the interior of the project, dewatering will be accomplished with surface pumps, supplemented with local shallow well points, and dewatering wells. Remedial grading activities 5 A IrIr A dA a A A I-A t"r A R 0% AdG will be set back from the norti:i property line be at least 40 feet at the top of excavation and 50 feet at the bottom. 'rhe grading plans for the new alternatives place the Pasco Park, a 50-root wide passive land use, between the existing properties on the north and "B; Street. Neither dewatering nor remedial grading will be required for that area." Based on, the forgoing quotations, the type of earth preparation is definitely more intrusive to the land than the surface plowing of much lighter farming equipment. If we can feel the ground vibration front these farming activities, why shouldn't we feel the impact of the vibratory excitation from the much bigger and heavier machines?It is our opinion that a mere 40-50 feet in the form of Pasco Park will not be sufficient to attenuate the ground disturbance to the point of"no impact is expected". We do not want. to be controversial and disagree with the expert opinion of the geotechnical consultant. We merely want to be assured of secure environment. And the assurance has to be based on .facts, not words. To this end, we propose that ground movements to be monitored by the developer with the cogni .ante of the City Engineer at selected locations before, during and after the construction of the project. Vic will offer our back yard as an experiment platform on which various earth-movement measuring devices including but .not limited to strain gages and accelerometers could be mounted. Concern IV This is an issue of personal safety and security, which is closely tied in with the status of the wall in our back:. After reviewing the pertinent responses concerning the "wall"in the Final EIR; vol. II, we don't know whether the wall stays as is or to be torn down. While the Mitigation Measure 1*1o.3 (Ref. P 5-113) stated that"prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall produce evidence(specs) acceptable to the City Engineer that the new walls along the project's northern property will be constructed to achieve maximum sound attenuation", other response in the same Final EIR appears to be less positive. To wit: Response to DR-4,p.3-75, '`Shea originally proposed to build a 6' �:Iugh masonry wail along the north (adajcent to Kenilworth), east and south boundaries of the site............Under the new alternatives analyzed in the June 2001 document. a new 6-foot high masonry wall would not be needed along the north boundary for piivacy,aesthetic reasons F (due to the 133-foot buffer, which includes the 50-foot paseo park); however, the City may choose to require a new wall along the north boundary. If a wall is required by the City, the developer would attempt to obtain cooperation from the owner of the adjacent property to remove and replace the existing wall. The City typically does not permit dual wall situations for health and safety reasons, The single wall would avoid nuisance of hazards and satisfy maintenance concerns." We like to know when the City will make the decision on the subject wall. If the decision is for a new wall, when the current wall will be torn down, during what phase of the project the wall demolition will take place, and how long we will be without a wall in our back yard. We also like to know whether any precautionary measure is contemplated by the City to safeguard our security during the period that our back yard is wide open. A similar concern was addressed to Mr.Jim Barnes of the Department of Community Development in our letter of Tune 6. 1998, but we received no response. We realize that a 6-foot block wall is not a security guarantee (Records in Huntington Beach Police Department might reveal that someone climbed over our back wall on April 10, 2002 and tried to break in our house.) but why invite trouble by leaving the back yard wide open. Sincerely, Mr.&Mrs. Sing Joe ong 7 August 28. 2002 �. ` SEP 0 4 2002 To: Planning Commission(Names) Subject: Draft EIR No. 97-2 Follow up to comments delivered to the Planning Commission on 8/27/02 Let me first thank you for opening the meeting to informal comments. As you are aware, I have followed the development plans since it was first proposed and in particular have questioned the mitigation measures to return the proposed borrow site to it's natural state,the single access to the site,and the request for assurance that no access can be allowed onto Greenleaf Lane from the new development. I had hoped to formally express my concerns at the first scheduled hearing on September 10, 2002. However,I will be vacationing in Ireland. Therefore,I request that this letter be placed in the record and hopefully read into the.record. As I stated Tuesday evening I am a Registered Civil/Structural Engineer and hold California General Engineering"A"Contractor's License. I currently work as a Consultant to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority(MTA)advising the Authority in matters of Construction cost estimates and claims. I have resided at 17192 Greenleaf Lane since 1984. My main concern is that a second and logical egress from the proposed development be provided to Bolsa Chica Street. Serious consideration should be given to the alignment B (middle extension). The main objection to this access appears to be location of archaeological sites and the steep slope of the terrain. Concerning the Archaeological sites there are approved procedures for their relocation. Regarding the slope and encroachment on build out space,this can be minimized by a design utilizing retaining walls to allow re grading to achieve the required 8 percent grade. The benefits are two-fold. It mitigates the perceived traffic problem on Graham with one entrance and it ensures that no egress will later be approved onto Greenleaf Lane. The above being said,I have followed the evolution of the EIR and believe that Shea and its Consultants have done a good job of truing to mitigate the concerns of the residents. In summary, as a Professional Engineer and neighbor to the proposed development I believe the proposed development is a win—win situation for the city and the developer. I hope the Planning Commission will think strategically and find a way to allow egress to Bolsa Chica Street from the proposed development and do what's right good for the Community Thyik you, Joe Bule ,PE, A License CE lTD SEP 0 5 2002 September 5, 2002 Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to publicly comment on Shea Homes'proposed Parkside development project. I have lived in Huntington Beach for 19 years and currently reside off of Graham Street near the Shea property. I do not understand how this project can be approved based upon the many omissions, inadequacies, and factual errors contained in the project's "Final" EIR. I. The traffic study (Volume IIA, Technical Appendix 1) is inadequate. The car count was done in 1994 for Warner and 1996 for Graham—well before 1998 when Home Depot was relocated to Warner Ave, thereby omitting a key travel destination from the study. It also does not include traffic data on the Gym currently being constructed at Marine View Middle School, where student enrollment has increased 14% between the 1996/97 and 2001/02 school year. However, the part of the study that is truly baffling is the conclusion that not a single vehicle from the Parkside development would be making a morning trip to Marine View School—the study's car counts remain stagnant! That's right: Not one single student will be driven to school front Parkside. How can this be possible when the westernmost residential lot of the proposed project is nearly one (1) mile from the school? II. EIR Volume II, Section 5.5 (Noise) does not discuss the specific noise impacts resulting from adding a signal at Graham & "A" street. The Noise section of the EIR describes all impacts in terms of CNEL 24-hour averages,which is essentially a pro-development tool for disguising the true impact of noise into a measure which doesn't reflect how people experience sound in real life (just ask anyone who's lived under the take-off flight path for John Wayne Airport, when CNEL was used to argue that nobody would notice extra takeoffs). A new signal would change Graham's southbound "through" traffic noise into "stop &go" traffic noise, which has higher sound spikes as people accelerate from a dead stop to go up & over the Wintersburg bridge. III. EIR Volume II Section 3.7 (Proposed Actions) says, "The City also proposes to remove the fire station designation and descriptions of a fire station on the site, found within the General Plan; since no lowland development was approved as part of the Bolsa Chica project, the City has determined that a fire station at this location is unnecessary. Therefore, it is requesting removal of this designation from Figure PF-1 Public Facility Locations." The EIR blatantly contradicts the City's General Plan Public Facilities and Public Services Element, which states, "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 and the Graharn/Kenilworth area." Nor does the EIR address the impacts to surrounding neighborhoods as a result of removing the proposed fire station from the General Plan. That impact omission is all the more alarming considering information contained elsewhere in the EIR that admits that the area does not currently meet response time standards (see below). IV. EIR Volume II Section 5.10 (Public Services and Utilities) states: "Response time from the Heil Station is estimated to be five minutes. Warner Station is equipped with a four-person paramedic engine. Response time from the Warner Station is estimated to be five minutes and 30 seconds. These stations provide fire protection, emergency medical aid (paramedic level), and emergency ambulance transportation. Fire Station #8 at 5891 Heil Avenue is planned to be relocated to Graham and Production Lane by the year 2000 in order to mitigate a response deficiency that exists in the industrial section of the City of Huntington Beach. This will result in Station #8 being one and three- quarter (1 3/4) miles instead of one mile from the project site, making Warner Station #7 the closest station to the site. Fire Station#6 located on Edwards Street near Ellis Avenue is scheduled to be constructed in late 1998, which will be a back-up unit to the proposed project site. Currently, fire department response time to the project area does not meet the criteria established by the Cities Growth Management Committee. This policy requires a fire department response time under five minutes 80 percent of the time." The EIR's "acceptable" fire safety mitigation measures—smoke alarms, automatic sprinklers, a traffic signal, and implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 ("additional fire code requirements" as need)—do not address medical safety or medical response. Emergency call types to the HB Fire Department have remained constant over the past decade: ■ 1992 -- 70% of all F.D. calls were for medical aid; 6% for fires. (1992 Draft General Plan) ■ 1996 -- 68% of all F.D. calls were for medical aid; 6% for fires. (1996 General Plan) ■ 2001 -- 65% of all F.D. calls were for medical aid. Just 3% were for fires. (HBFD annual report,2001) Why does the EIR contain mitigations for something that seldom occurs yet does not mitigate for something that occurs the majority of the time? There is NO mention of the medical safety impacts in the EIR, and certainly no mitigations are proposed to deal with the medical aid response time issue. V. The EIR's Water Quality analysis does not consider the impact of increased activity by the Slater Pump Station. Shea runoff entering the polluted Slater Channel will cause the pumps to run more frequently than they presently do. This will result in a greater number of days where existing Slater Channel pollution is pumped into the Wintersburg Channel, flowing down into already-polluted Huntington Harbour. Furthermore, the County will require permits for the pumps Shea wants to add to the Slater Pump Station, as permits have been obtained for pumps previously added. It is not mentioned in the EIR that the County might impose an automatic throttle- back limit to prevent the new pumps from causing the Wintersburg Channel to overflow. The recent County-permitted expansion of the Shields Pump Station located approximately 1 mile upstream the Wintersburg Channel(between Springdale and Edwards) includes a stilling well float sensor that throttles back the pumps once a specific water surface elevation is reached in the channel. The same County policies that apply to the Shields Pump Station would likely apply to the new pumps at the Slater Pump Station when obtaining the Shea pumps permit. Therefore, if the Wintersburg Channel is already full; the developer's new pumps won't be able to run at full capacity, thus putting the already overcommitted Slater Channel at risk for overflowing. The permit process may also result in conditions capable of changing the whole nature of the drainage system and the FEMA COLMR, as the base flood elevations mentioned therein become suspect and form the basis for an appeal. VI. EIR Volume II Section 8.1 (Environmental Impacts Found Not to be Significant) states, "It is not anticipated that the proposed residential project will produce any noticeable objectionable odors." However, EIR Volume IIA Section 5 (Water Quality) page 4-1 says: "Although the stone 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? VII. Shea's repeated claims that the Parkside project is an "infill" project are bogus. EIR Volume Il Section 7.2 (Growth Inducing Impacts): "The proposed project site represents an area containing undeveloped land, surrounded by development. As such, it can be viewed as an infill site and a logical extension of the development of land uses surrounding the site. It can also be viewed as an opportunity to provide a complementary, cohesive land use to surrounding suburban areas. The project site is surrounded by residential development to the north, east, and south beyond the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel." Aerial photos (http://www.bixby.org/parkside/where.html; look especially at the photo at the bottom of this page) beg to differ with this assessment. Viewed from above, this project isn't "filling in" anything; instead, it is cutting off the eastern end of the open Bolsa Chica wetlands space. VIII. Lastly, there are several typos of fact in the so-called "Final" EIR's Volume II, despite the claim in the "Summary of Changes" that, "The Final EIR includes changes in response to typographical errors found"and "The changes to the original text...which consist of completeness or accuracy edits, are being corrected at this time." These typos result in inaccuracy errors, which mar the overall trustworthiness of the EIR. Three examples: ■ Marine View Middle.School, Volume II, page 5-175: "It is approximately four(4) miles from the site." Actually,it is four- tenths (4/10) miles from the site. ■ Huntington Beach High School, Volume II, page 5-176 "It is located at 1905 Main Street, approximately two and one-half(2 1/2) miles from the site." Actually, it is four and one-half(4 1/2) miles from the site. ■ OCTA bus trips on Graham between Warner and Slater, Volume II, page 5-177: "Two of these trips run on Graham Street." The bus stops were removed from Graham Street in September 2000, so the current bus trip count is zero (0). IX. To summarize, the "Final" EIR is deficient and inadequate in the following areas: 1. Outdated and insufficient Traffic Study 2. Noise impact analysis 3. Non-Compliance with the City's General Plan concerning the Fire Station Designation and Response Times 4. Mitigation measures for Medical Safety 5. Water quality analysis & flood control issues 6. Odor problem analysis 7. Misleading claim of project on an "infill" site 8. Inaccuracies from typos (which should have been corrected) It is also worth mentioning that a recent court case (Saddleback Canyons Conservancy v. County of Orange) found an EIR lacking because "the report didn't adequately examine the potential effects of the (project] on local water quality."(OC REGISTER, 8/17/02) The LA TIMES (8/17/02) reported that the EIR was rejected because "the project was not in keeping with planning regulations for the area." The Planning Commission should keep the ruling in mind when determining the worthiness of the Shea EIR and the Parkside Project. Thank you, 0 'Mrs. Julie BixbyM �. 17451 Hillgate Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 v*..rq-r-V A fi 10 S 18 9aa gn- a Roo, -,A • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION R;C ED To: Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner SEP 0 4 2002 From: Charles W. Burney, Fire WUDivision Chief Date: September 4, 2002 SUBJECT: PARKSIDE ESTATES DEVELOPMENT, FIRE STATION AND RESPONSE TIME ISSUES This memo is to address the questions and concerns expressed at the August 27, 2002, Planning Commission Study Session regarding the need for a fire station in the Parkside Estates Project and the overall response deficiencies identified in the General Plan for the areas near this development. A 1992 consultant's report that identified the need for a fire station in this area of the city and recommended the relocation of Station 8 was based on the development of 4800 homes in the Koll Bolsa Chica Project including a Cross Connector Road. The fire station's primary location as recommended in the report was at the south end of Springdale. This report further identifies the need for two fire stations if the Cross Connector Road is not developed, one at the Kenilworth& Graham location and a second at Garfield and Edwards. When development of the Bolsa Chica was limited to the mesa, coverage for the low land area was incorporated into the planning and selection of a site for Station 6. The location of Station 6 was specifically chosen near Edwards and Ellis to provide the necessary coverage to the low land area adjacent to the Bolsa Chica. Based on the number of homes and anticipates service demand of the Parkside Estates Project,it does not justify the construction of a new fire station. A change in the General Plan to remove the reference to a fire station is necessary now that Station 6 is operational. The General Plan also needs to be amended to reflect the current capabilities of Station 6 to provide coverage for the low land area identified as response time deficient. Tests conducted by the Fire Department demonstrate that Station 6 has a consistent response time of 4 minute 30 seconds to the intersection of Slater and Graham. This intersection is at the northerly boundary of the deficient area and the Fire Department is confident that Station 6 is capable of meeting the 5 minute emergency response time required to mitigate the deficiency. Cc: Michael P. Dolder, Fire Chief Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA guidelines, City policies, and certification that the data vvas considered in final decisions on the project. 2. Annexation 98-1. The property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting annexation of the 4.5- acre county parcel to the City of Huntington Beach through the Local Agency, Formation Commission (LAFCO). Shea Homes will also propose a concurrent annexation to the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD). 3. General Plan Amendment No. 98-1. The City of Huntington Beach is proposing to amend the City's General Plan Land Use Map to accommodate a park site as part of the project. The City proposes to modify the Land Use Map so that a portion of the site designated RL-7 is changed to OS-PR (Open Space - Parks and Recreation). The City also proposes to remove the fire station designation and descriptions of a fire station on the site, found within the General Plan; since no lowland development was approved as part of the Bolsa Chica project and since Station #6 is currently operational, the City has determined that a fire station at this location is unnecessary. Therefore, it is requesting removal of this designation from Figure PF-1 Public Facility Locations. Third, the property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting to amend the General Plan to designate the 4.5-acre County of Orange parcel to RL-7 (Residential Low Density). 4. Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5. The property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting a zone map amendment from RL-FP2 to RL-FP2-CZ, which would add the Coastal Zone suffix to the residential zoning. The City is requesting a zone map amendment from RA- CZ to OS-PR-CZ, which would bring the zoning into consistency with the General Plan and to amend a portion of the RL-FP2-CZ zone to OS-PR-CZ to reflect the park boundary. The purpose of the zone amendments are to 1) clean up the zoning map by correcting an omission on the zoning map; and 2) bring the zoning (on the park component of the project) into consistency with the General Plan designation. Additionally, the property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting a map amendment to prezone the 4.5-acre County of Orange parcel as RL-FP2-CZ (Residential Low Density - Floodplain District- Coastal Zone). 5. Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City) and Tentative Tract Map No. 15419(County). The property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide the site into lots for development. 6. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-90. The property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for proposed development which includes the following: a. Dual-product lot sizes to include 50-foot wide lots with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet(with an average lot size of over 5,700 square feet), and 60-foot wide lots with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet (with an average lot size of over 7,000 square feet); Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities 5.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Information used in the preparation of this analysis was obtained through letters and phone conversations with public services and utilities in October, 1997 through February, 1998. Utility service questionnaires are contained in Appendix A of this EIR. EXISTING CONDITIONS Fire The following information is based on correspondence from the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department dated October 8, 1997 and conversations/correspondence dated September 4, 2002. Fire protection for the proposed project will be provided by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. The site will be served by tive three stations. The first is the Heil Fire Station#8 located at 5891 Heil Street, approximately one and one-half(l %) miles from the project site. The second station serving the site is the Warner Station#7 at 3831 Warner Avenue, approximately ' two (2) miles from the project site. The third station is the Edwards Station #6 at 18951 Edwards Street approximately 2 Y4 miles from the site Heil Station is equipped with a four-person paramedic engine company. Response time from the Heil Station is estimated to be five minutes. Warner Station is equipped with a four-person paramedic engine. Response time from the Warner Station is estimated to be five minutes and 30 seconds. Edwards Station is equipped with a four person paramedic engine company and two person engine company. Response time from the Edwards Station is estimated to be five minutes. These stations provide fire protection, emergency medical aid(paramedic level), and emergency ambulance transportation. Fire Station#8 at 5891 Heil Avenue is planned to be relocated to Graham and Production Lane by4he yem 2000 as funding permits in order to mitigate a response deficiency that exists in the industrial section of the City of Huntington Beach. This will result in Station #8 being one and three-quarter (13/4) miles instead of one and one-half(I %) miles from the project site., site. Fire Station #6 located on Edwards Street near Ellis Avenue was is sehedaled constructed in 2000 We 1998, while and is currently a back-up unit to the proposed project site. With the relocation of Station #8, Station #6 would be assigned as the primary responding station. Currently, fire department response time to the project area does fiet meet the criteria established by the Cities Growth Management Committee. This policy requires a fire department response time under five minutes 80 percent of the time. Police The following information is based on correspondence from the City of Huntington Beach Police Department dated October 13, 1997. Police service is provided to the project area by the Huntington Beach Police Department. The project site encompasses Reporting District # 176. The Department is currently responsible for crime prevention, investigation, and enforcement of 5-174 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities (z) Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Additionally, for the purposes of this EIR, expansion of existing services due to project demand constitutes a significant impact if the provider anticipates substantial difficulty in providing increased service. All public services and utilities have been analyzed to assess capacity impacts associated with the proposed project. Fire Future development of the project site may create a need for additional fire protection services. The increase in the number of residential units and the number of individuals brought into the area, as well as the resulting increase in traffic will directly affect the fire department's responses. Currently, fire department response time from the Heil and ref Edwards stations to the project area do fiet meet the criteria established by the Cities Growth Management Committee, which requires a fire department response time under five minutes 80 percent of the time. As indicated previously, the Heil Station at 5891 Heil Avenue, although currently only one and one half(1 %) miles away from the project site, is planned to be relocated to Graham and Production Lane by the funding permits, resulting in the fire station being located one and three-quarter(1 3/4)miles away from the project site. Additional impacts to current response times are anticipated with relocation of the fire station. Response time from the new location to the project site would be greater than five minutes. However, Station #6 located near Edwards and Ellis became operational in 2000 and tests conducted by the Fire Department demonstrate that Station#6 is capable of meeting the S minute emergency response time for the project. e half( 'M miles f....., the site with a time of&ye and .. 1,aN(5 ',_) Inioutes. Potentially, one additional fire company will be required at the new facility at Graham and Production Lane. Capital revenue for this new facility is currently under negotiation with the development of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. The most likely source for revenue will come from the City's General Fund. Additionally, the fire department has reviewed the proposed access points (i.e., one full access off Graham Street and one "emergency only" access [which was initially proposed as a full access] at Greenleaf Lane) and have concluded that the proposal is acceptable from a fire safety standpoint as long as a traffic signal is installed at the Graham access (refer to traffic mitigation) and Mitigation Measure 1 of this section is implemented. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce impacts related to the need for adequate response times and additional fire protection services to a level less than significant. Police Development within the project area will adversely impact the level of police services presently provided. Calls for service will increase, requiring additional staff and office time to manage the 5-179 ATTACHMENT 5 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities 5.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Information used in the preparation of this analysis was obtained through letters and phone conversations with public services and utilities in October, 1997 through February, 1998. Utility service questionnaires are contained in Appendix A of this EIR. EXISTING CONDITIONS Fire The following information is based on correspondence from the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department dated October 8, 1997 and conversations/correspondence dated September 4, 2002. Fire protection for the proposed project will be provided by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. The site will be served by t%e three stations. The fast is the Heil Fire Station#8 located at 5891 Heil Street, approximately one and one-half(1 %) miles from the project site. The second station serving the site is the Warner Station#7 at 3831 Warner Avenue, approximately two (2) miles from the project site. The third station is the Edwards Station #6 at 18951 Edwards Street approximately 2'/s miles from the site Heil Station is equipped with a four-person paramedic engine company. Response time from the Heil Station is estimated to be five minutes. Warner Station is equipped with a four-person paramedic engine. Response time from the Warner Station is estimated to be five minutes and 30 seconds. Edwards Station is equipped with a four person paramedic engine company and two person ar 44 4 company. Response time from the Edwards Station is estimated to be five minutes These stations provide fire protection, emergency medical aid (paramedic level), and emergency ambulance transportation. Fire Station#8 at 5891 Heil Avenue is planned to be relocated to Graham and Production Lane by4he yeaf-2000 as funding permits in order to mitigate a response deficiency that exists in the industrial section of the City of Huntington Beach. This will result in Station #8 being one and three-quarter (1%) miles instead of one and one-half(1 %) miles from the project site., Fire Station #6 located on Edwards Street near Ellis Avenue was is sehe e-he constructed in 2000late 1999, YA&h vAl be and is currently a back-up unit to the proposed project site. With the relocation. of Station #8, Station #6 would be assigned as the primary responding station. Currently, fire department response time to the project area does net meet the criteria established by the Cities Growth Management Committee. This policy requires a fire department response time under five minutes 80 percent of the time. Police The following information is based on correspondence from the City of Huntington Beach Police Department dated October 13, 1997. Police service is provided to the project area by the Huntington Beach Police Department. The project site encompasses Reporting District# 176. The Department is currently responsible for crime prevention,investigation, and enforcement of, 5-174 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEFARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Planning Commission FROM: Robert Righetti, Project Review SUBJECT: Parkside Estates—Offsite/Onsite Drainage Fact Sheet DATE: September 10, 2002 Per your requests, over the past several days up to this morning, the following attachments have been assembled for your use and for discussion purposes in review of the Parkside Estates development project, and the related drainage facilities offsite. The following items have been included in this package: Attachment 1 — Letter from the County of Orange on Slater Pump Station permits, dated 9/4/02 Attachment 2— FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision, dated 6/6/02 Attachment 3—Email response from Michael Grimm, FEMA, on status of CLOMR dated 8128/02 Attachment 4—First permit for Slater Pump Station, 5/1/64,with 6/14/67 rider for pump no. 3 Attachment 5— Second permit for Slater Pump Station improvements, dated 5/17/75 Attachment 6—Portions of SLA study on Slater Channel and pump station, dated 8/23/00 Attachment 7—Orange County study on Slater Channel and pump station, dated 9/76 Attachment 8—Williamson & Schmid Project Report on the Wintersburg Channel dated 12/94 Attachment 9—Memorandum from Howard Zeiefsky on FEMA floodplain reduction, 6/28/02 cc: file ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Vicki L.mdson,Director 300 N. Flower Street o COUNTY OF ORANGE Santa Ana,CA v r7 P.O.Box 4048 • Pumrc FACZF.=s&,RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Santa Ana,CA 927024048 �q<IFov- Telephone: (714) 2300 334- September 4, 2002 Mr.David Webb, City Engineer City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Slater Pump Station Dear Dave: I have reviewed the permit records for the Slater Pump Station and found that all of the inlets to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (C05)were properly permitted by the City.The most recent permit was issued on May 15, 1975 (earlier permits were issued in 1964 and 1965). The plans associated with the 1975 permit clearly indicate that the work included replacement of corrugated metal pipe on the three existing pumped discharge outlets, construction of five additional outlets,construction of a reinforced concrete outlet structure, installation of flap gates on all eight outlets, modifications to a sump pump outlet, and construction of-.reinforced concrete channel lining in the proximity of the outlets. In addition,the permit file documents that a fourth pump was added to the pump station at that time. Installation of additional pumps discharging to the C05 channel and the proposed construction of a storm drain extending beneath the channel from the Shea property to the pump station will require a permit. Submittal of hydrology and hydraulic calculations will be necessary to confirm that additional discharge to the C05 channel does not increase the potential for overtopping. This information should clarify the status of Orange County Flood Control District encroachment permits at Slater Pump Station. You will also receive by separate mailing a copy of a letter sent to FEMA by PFRD/Flood Control Division pertaining to this same Shea development project and the Slater Pump Station. This letter is in response to a FEMA inquiry prompted by a concerned citizen. I believe this letter will be sent within the next few days. Please contact me at(714) 834-2319 if you have further questions. Sincerely, "� Pail ames A. Miller, Manager PFRD/Engineering &Permit Services Division cc: Doug Witherspoon Herb Nakasone Ken R. Smith ATTACHMENT NO. 2 A Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 J U N 0 6 2O02 CERTIFIED MAIL IN REPLY REFER TO: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Case No.: 01-09-393R The Honorable Debbie Cook Community: City of Huntington Beach, CA Mayor,City of Huntington Beach Community No.: 065034 City Hall 2000 Main Street 104 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Cook: This responds to a request that the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)comment on the effects that a proposed'project would have on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map THIRD and Flood Insurance Study(FIS)report for Orange County,California and Incorporated Areas(the effective FIRM and FIS report for your community), in accordance with Part 65 of the National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP)regulations. In a letter dated February 5,2001,Theodore V. Hromadka 11,Ph.D.,Ph.D., Ph.Dc.,P.H.,P.E.,Exponent Failure Analysis Associates(Exponent), requested that FEMA evaluate the effects that the proposed Shea Homes Parkside Estates development along the northern overbank of East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel from approximately 3,200 feet downstream to just downstream of Graham Street would have on the flood hazard information shown on the effective FIRM and FIS report. The proposed development will consist of.. 1) Placement of fill in the overbank areas bordered on the south by East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel,on the east by Graham Street, on the north by a property line that is approximately parallel to and 100 feet south of Kenilworth Drive,and on the west by a north-south tract boundary that is approximately 2,200 feet west of Graham Street(Shea Homes property); 2) Constriction of a gated 10-foot-diameter culvert beneath the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel; 3) Addition of two 147-cubic-feet-per-second(cfs)pumps to the Slater Pump Station; 4) Construction of steel sheet-pile walls along the southern boundary of the development;and 5) Development of an internal drainage system to convey the interior drainage and potential flows that may result from levee breaches. The request also included a revised hydrologic study for East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel. In addition,the request included a study entitled`Final Response to FEMA May 2,2002,Comments on February 5,2001,Request for Conditional Letter of Map Revision: Shea Homes Parkside Estates Tentative Tract Nos. 15377 &15419: Expanded Watershed Analysis of East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel Watershed from the Tide Gates to I-405 Freeway,"prepared by Exponent,dated May 16,2002. This study is comprised of detailed proposed conditions"with-levee"and"without-levee"HEC-UNET, Version 4.0,models dated May 16,2002. These models include East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel 2 . from its conflueace with the Pacific Ocean to its crossing over the San Diego Freeway; Ocean View Channel from its confluence with East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel to its crossing over the San Diego Freeway;and associated levees,pump stations,bridge structures, and gated culverts. Because the existing levees along East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel are not certified in accordance with Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations,the modeling involved failing levees in accordance with the FFAMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, dated February 2002. As a result of these hydraulic models and a revised delineation of the Special Flood Hazard Area(SFHA),the area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood), the FIRM and FIS report can be revised not only for the Shea Homes property but also for the entire study reach. All data required to complete our review of this request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) were submitted with letters from Mr. Neil M.Jordan, P.E.,Senior Engineer,also with Exponent,and Dr.Hromadka. Because this request also affects the unincorporated areas of Orange County, a separate CLOMR for that community was issued on the same date as this CLOMR. We reviewed the submitted data and the data used to prepare the effective FIRM for your community and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain management criteria of the NFIP. The effective HEC-RAS model dated January 26,2000,was used as the base conditions model in our review of the proposed conditions model for the CLOW request. We believe that,if the proposed project is constructed as shown on the map entitled"Tentative Tract Map No. 15377,"prepared by Hunsaker& Associates,dated February 1,2001,and the data listed below are received,a revision to the FIRM would be warranted. As a result of more detailed topographic information,the water-surface elevation(WSEL) of the base flood will decrease compared to the effective base flood WSEL along East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel. The maximum decrease in base flood WSEL, 1.9 feet,will occur approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Gothard Street. As a result of the more detailed topographic information, the proposed project,and the failure of uncertified levees,the base flood WSEL will decrease compared to the effective base flood WSEL along the northern overbank of East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel. The maximum decrease in base flood WSEL,6.4 feet,will occur in an area bordered on the west by Graham Street,on the east by Springdale Street,on the south by Warner Avenue,and on the north by Heil Avenue. The base flood WSEL within the Shea Homes property will be 2.2 feet,referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. The width of the SFHA will decrease from approximately 2,120 feet downstream of Graham Street to just downstream of the San Diego Freeway. As a result of the more detailed topographic information,the proposed project,and the failure of uncertified levees,the base flood WSEL will decrease compared to the effective base flood WSEL along the southern overbank of East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel. The maximum decrease in base flood WSEL, 5.9.feet,will occur in an area bounded approximately on the west by the Slater Pump Station, on the east by Gothard Street, on the south by Central Park Drive,and on the north by Slater Avenue. Upon completion of the project,your community may submit the data listed below and request that we make a final determination on revising the effective FIRM and FIS report. 3 • Effective June 1, 2000,FEMA revised the fee schedule for reviewing and processing requests for conditional and final modifications to published flood information and maps. In accordance with this schedule, the current fee for this map revision request is$3,400 and must be received before we can begin processing the request. Please note,however, that the fee schedule is subject to change,and requesters are required to submit the fee in effect at the time of the submittal. Payment of this fee shall be made in the form of a check or money order,inade payable in U.S. funds to the National Flood Insurance Program,or by credit card.The payment must be forwarded to the following address: Federal Emergency Management Agency Fee-Charge System Administrator P.O.Box 3173 Merrifield,VA 22116-3173 • As-built plans, certified by a registered professional engineer, of all proposed project elements • Community acknowledgment of the map revision request • Please provide evidence that the proposed levee along the southern boundary of the Shea Homes property ties into the high ground at both ends. • Please ensure that the proposed levee system surrounding the Shea Homes property conforms to all requirements of Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations,in particular the provisions concerning freeboard,closure devices and mechanisms for interior drainage, anticipated erosion,embankment stability,retention of freeboard during settlement, and operation and maintenance plans. • Hydraulic analyses,for as-built conditions, of the base flood, if they differ from the proposed conditions models. Please note that the HEC-UNET models dated May 16,2002, must be resubmitted if they differ from the prop6sed conditions models. • Please note that the work map entitled"Certified Topographic Workmap,"prepared by Hunsaker&Associates,dated May 16,2002,does not correctly represent the base flood WSEL for Storage Areas 8 and 20. Please submit a corrected.work map. After receiving appropriate documentation to show that the project has been completed,FEMA will initiate a revision to the FIRM and FIS report. Because Base Flood Elevations(BFEs) would be established as a result of the project,a 90-day appeal period would be initiated, during'which community officials and interested persons may appeal the BFEs based on scientific or technical data. The basis of this CLOMR is,in whole or in part, a culvert project. NFIP regulations, as cited in Paragraph 60.3(b)(7),require that communities assure that the flood-carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained This provision is incorporated into your community's existing floodplain management regulations. Consequently,the ultimate responsibility for maintenance of the culvert rests with your community. 4 This CLOMR is based on minimum floodplain management criteria established under the NFIP. Your community is responsible for approving all floodplain development and for ensuring all necessary permits required by Federal or State law have been received. State,county, and community officials,based on knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety,may set higher standards for construction in the SFHA. If the State,county,or community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria,these criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP criteria. If you have any questions regarding floodplain management regulations for your community or the NFIP in general,please contact the Consultation Coordination Officer(CCO)for your community. Information on the CCO for your community may be obtained by calling the Chief, Community Mitigation Programs Branch,Mitigation Division of FEMA in San Francisco, California,at(415)923-7184. If you have any questions regarding this CLOMR,please call our Map Assistance Center, toll free,at 1-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627). Sincerely, Matthew B.Miller,P.E.,Chief Hazards Study Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration Enclosures cc: The Honorable Cynthia P. Coad Chair,Orange County Board of Supervisors Mr.Sara Bavan Manager Flood Control Planning . County of Orange Mr.David Webb City Engineer Department of Public Works City of Huntington Beach Mr.Neil M.Jordan,P.E. Senior Engineer Exponent Failure Analysis Associates Mr.Ronald C.Metzler Vice President,Planning and Development Shea Homes ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Pierce, Susan From: Grimm, Michael (Michael.Gdmm@fema.gov) Sent: Wednesday,August 28, 2002 6:49 AM To: 'Susan Pierce Hunt. Beach'; 'Steve Krieger at Huntington Beach' Subject: FW: Planning Commission Workshop Public Comment-City of Hunting ton Beach Please send this to Bob R, I seem to have a wrong email address for him. Thanks Mike -----Original Message----- From: Grimm, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 9:42 AM To: Neil Jordan; 'Douglas Hamilton' Cc: ' ron.metzler@sheahomes. com' ; 'Herb Nakasone ' ; 'AB Mehtall 'rrighetti@surfcity-hb .org' ; ' Sheila Norlin' ; Grimm, Michael; Yuan, Max Subject: RE: Planning Commission Workshop Public Comment - City of Hunting ton Beach Neil/Doug, At this time, FEMA is not re-evaluating the CLOMR in response to the letter from Mr. Bixby. FEMA would re-evalaute the CLOMR as necessary if we receive new or revised technical information that would warrant such a review if the City or County determines that a revised H&H analysis is required to accurately account for the operation of the proposed pumps. At this time, the CLOMR (case 01-09-393R) issued on June 6, 2002 are FEMA's comments on the effects that a proposed project would have on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood= Insurance Study for Orange County and the City of Huntington Beach. In accordance with Section 65..10 of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations, the CLOMR 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. Thank you. Mike Grimm Project Officer FEMA - Hazards Study Branch 500 C Street SW Washington DC 20472 202-646-2878 -----Original Message----- From: Douglas Hamilton (mailto:dhamilton@exponent.com] ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Sent by: FL000 CONTROL 30; 06/25/02 14:15; JslEa&_#835;Page 2/5 ' [Lnnnuw rrtssa I .—ANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRb. 1. POMIT DATA PERMIT KUMHax 02964 J PERMITTED City. of Huntington tekrh"I'td; !•. .a- .'+ «wa.•+•••r-' .-Pepe SAX 790 •:i s]i l7 zap+IIIC:r,� Sr:� :^, '�: IYBDA?8 8antington Mich] Califci�ciiia �. ... !�: .'t:r� G"t2a 1964 DISTRICT PROecr: East Garden Grovo-Ulatersbtsrg. xriom DATE 1 R/W CLASSIFICATION: Z. PERMITTED USE . ._.,.... , s. • h. The Orange County Flood Control District herebp Ora ission to permimw to do the following, subject to provisions an reverse hereah • :,I :;. •,,2 'I�cl. tel:. .�, To construct and maintain stank Boater PUBT station discharge lines with flapgatee,Within the district's right of way of the East Gerden`Vr&*-Wintersbnrg Channel at Slater Ave. as ehoen 6d' t1W"'Slayer Avenue 'P'timp'Station" constraatiois plans l „° "Q •,C:r, alitet .r S f ZZ A Vr, 9. FERAttITTEE'S ACCEPTANCE Permiitee accepts permit and agrees to comply with and be bound by the terms thereof. PERM ITTEE a REVIEW BY COUNTY COUNSEL Approved as to form: A6818TANT S. MPROVAL OF PERMIT A. Approved by Board of Supervisors of Orange County Flood Control District by order made and entered Atteri ' GLXMIX DATA CHAIRMAN,NO-AMC)OF SUPERVISORS B. Approved by Chief Engineer purauant to authority delegated by Board of Supervisors by Resolution No r.fig-52 , odap 1964 ORIGINA IGNED BY H. G. OSBORNE OAT* CHIEF EbI4IH92A Sent by: FLOOD CONTROL 30; 08/25/02 14:16; dZu #835;Page 3/5 JRANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT'• 023E3G , ; SPECIAL PROVISIONS P.rmiI No. A. Pe=itta shall cmatcWt the posmittsd Monts in accordance with On approved plans, s OW of which is on file in this office. All work shall be parfoinad to do satisfaction of this district's inspector. 8. All excavations shall be baekfilled and eampactsd to a relative density of at least 902 of the N is3moaemt dooslttyy as determined by tb4 "Five Layer NatW' as 111peQtfied in Q112csais Test Method No. 216C, 1936. tX_H* ao of the fisting chsaml slopes and iuvrt ,Toni► be laeeessssy .foe the 1Wtallation of the drainage, fwilitioe s Tbo imAmm sy reconstrueglAn. shall be perfound as dirwtad by end to ibis satisfaction of the district's inspector. C. At least 24 hours prior to the a out of stay work costeo- plated by this permit, pomittes shall notify district's Maintemame SupmrizItsadeat by telephone at 534-0336 or by writing, a d to him at LU72 last Carden Grove Boulevard, arrange, California. D. By Acceptaace of this permit, posmittee- agrees that the rip rap lining to be constructed within the district's sight of way shall became the property 4f the district sad the district shall be responsiblo for its melati . The permitsee shall be responsible for the ps�oprrr Werstions the maiutw aace and the replacemut of the tide gstos. the discharge lines. and all other devices for the purpose of preventing back flaw of water from districts works. E. This pezzit may be cancelled by the Hoard of Supervisors in the. event the use pandttrd is abandoned for a period excee434 C" year. F. pera►ittee in accepting this pOMiC St tog that it is Lilly aware of the relationship between the probable flood stage elevations in district's faaiVSL:d nd those of the streets, and other imprcry aorta to be into district's facility. Permittee-axre>es to hold dists'ieto its officers, employees mad agents ht=less fans a%Gbos and-all p*ua�sles, liabilities or 1"808 resulting Lran or court actions arising €ram dMage or iujwy to persons and ps by reasm of the installation, operation;; or faibwe of the-works to be coastruted Ioulor this permit. (courtnued) Sent by: FLOOD CONTROL 30; 08/25/02 14: 18; J§ffU #835;Page 4/5 F_� JRANGE COUNTY FLOOO CONTROL DISTRICT • 02364 SPECIAL PROVISIONS Permit Me. G. The die t=ict may I* tent � >t+e+ =Itsnet tilts East Gard= -- Graivs- iatersbu Cis! and *=Wtrwt C*W3rsta slope paving wiM t ithin tl�s aft tact dat Was of tm Proposed pvmpi Lt is �a " tues o I'6=14stsa agsses to can- peraaecat "lot atgactsa 0 0 dMM on the ap amsd plans or spare ether t cutlet works acntually ap"Oved 4 gesa#ttaa amd dtstsiets at the time of the districts taeautssattaa and at of tba Bast Garden G ran-vintrrr.bW8 aflrtaasl. Be Prior to any construction, roc atthla the distriat's right of ways petaittee's aontraetm doll sasaet and sat t1he necessary limn and ggrraades far tLe proposed construction worn and notify the distllat vbss said VAMys have been caae�pplsted. District @Mall tbsa ohm* the Bass and fides with its am s>srvrcyose vt ioirpseters and petarittee agress that construction wotic will mat Noce until tilde district's inspector hat certified that the lines dad grades are satis- factory to tta district. I. 3y the acceptance of this permito peraittee stipulates that ha is aware of the fact that tba district's channel is subject to ground subsidence in this areav vhick may cause damage to the proposed diseharge lines. perrittse agrees to hold the dis- trict harmless from any such dMage. Sent by: FLOOD CONTROL 30; 08/25/02 14:18; J Fax 035;Page 5/5 PLANNING FILES ORANGE -COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT f PERMIT RIDER PERMIT 023bEi 1. PERMIT DATA Permitrea: City of Huntington Beach EFF TIVE OATIS Huntington� i90 CaliforniaJUN 14 1967 Huntington Beachg ' ifor EXPIRATION GATE District Project: East Garden Grma-Wiatersburg Channel None 2. THE FOLLOWING CHANGES ARE HEREBY MADE TO THE ORIGINAL PERMIT: To construct an additional storm drain entry is district's Bast Garden Grove - Wfatorsburg C umel for Pump No. 3 to the Slater Avaoue Pump Station as shown on attached plans. 3. PERMITTEE'S ACCEPTANCE Perminew accepts rider and agrees to comply with end be bound by the forms thereof. P ERMI T TE E A. REVIEW BY COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE Approved as to form: -- 5. APPROVAL OF RIDER A. Approved by Board of Supervisors of Oranse County Flood Control District by order made and entered Attest CLERK DAT& GMAIAWAN, 80aR0 OF SUPERVISORS B. Approved by Chi of Engineer pursuant to authority delegated by Board of Supervisors. Origi.na( Signed By C. R. Nelsen �p.g enIGr eNClneeR OR AUTMORI;Fn RdPQKSENTATIVE ATTACHMENT NO. 5 •iiyy ORANGE COUNTY FL000 CONTROL DISTRICT I. BOX 10TR GAo r' :Iy CENTER OPIV!! WEST SA-:-A A•IA, r.AL19r()tdt41A 92702 ,•}::mot �''' 'x TFLF.7NLii- r't';' �33d•2?t24 ,.;: r. ' MAY 15 100 7 5 Sy REFERENCE: Co3.72 sY,yt' tint.•;, .. .7 �•:c'�Vvlits�1'i 7 ; PERMIT N O: tldgt 13, hi y Ys+ i' ='O: City at Ht tiagtan 14ACIi x7;r t* ': ?6st Office Box 190 " . Huntington 3ac.hs C411fazzia 92648 „uy�y Yit�"t� '• f" 7 t Attenti=1 1. E. Range, Dizr=tor of FubIle �lQ�ics 1 t r A+ your request for u��c of siiytriet Pro Ferry has been approve stsbjecr ;I" y ,I a,h lei to your compliance with the provisions of the enclosed fully exeeuts"� ptrtnte' �4��y .�� You may tall this office or the maintenance operadons bffier asp ;' Hated, !it the permit for furthor inlormation. r; a' 4 �♦�`t 7,t f "t?t 7Jt,? gyp' 9 � Y,i" y 1 sT y ty x Sincerely, w,r''tiy ty 17y3s1. �'Ir I' 1 �'�,�'� �r�Ri'•.?ii5 '� . ,� f�/�.•�.}�.r� L i 9.4t r STy. a. t� f :nginrc-. or A th rued Rcpreacntatatc r � " as 1,'�.•!';7 �t l ,i a tt�t� -t 4 y r I 1 I+NIL J' i • y >v.1����,t.,1 � � l k Y ' r ' t .. f t•5<'�j;v. 1 � a . rw J Jj— '!r•p+J. v t- .. �i' y .ti5y'•1'� '�• y�4*''jr.Yw,7 �,. t ;k i• a�y�.�t��' 'fir w t+.w aaax'�'s'C �I cl.r rfl`�,�, k4 Gr4t A1���-t�_+3��a.'�"�,h ti• •Zi- Y4"Sxi�x,,s ,+ri �. t r ttt � x �.tbt�rl��i�'��.Lxa G7}.�,� t �r�,• ja ''•F � .. .. -_......�. �.....r..r.w.v...�wr�.1s...1...liYr t.'LR•.L.rY.1�x.w'MAMwiw ..W.a 1NY..w�1L.}, .a.vr...u....r�......a.._i...n.IfA UPICINAL•PERMITCEs ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT �" `' «s 3 L PERMIT PERMIT DATA Ill NUMern V PE•RMtTTEE: City Ol hunt int.;L0t1 fh arh 00975 x< " SLU i'ecnn "CiFFECrrveai.r'st' •: t w4 Huntington 3vach, Cali Corn-la 92648 ` MAY 151975 , " • DISTRICT PROJECT! Ezu t Garden CT•,, ,c WICALursbur Channel rt~ M fXPIRATfON DATs: 1 f, ,�s4 NONE R/W CLASSIFICATION: A ' ` iy Z. PERMITTED USE b' +��4� yrl�•1.j�' The Orange County Flood Control District hereby grants permission to pormittea to do the following, subject to lk provisions on res:rse hereof; lYls M:;, ;• To construct and maintain an entry structure for storm drains connected tIi " t' the Slater Avenue Pump Stat.i,)n witnin dtstcir,t's East Carden Grove-Wintersbur ' Channel right-of-way near Sinter Avenue as shown on attached plans (CC-332). ;p roar tx� 3. PERMITTEWS ACCEPTANCE Permlttee accepts permit and agrees to comply with and be bevnd by tho terms. ihereaf. :r l�n �yyiiUr !' ti y ?i 1 • . .f RMEW BY COUNTY COUNSEL f 7 J Approved as to forms .. „ " "rT° i L'•t`s : ylnklyr , rt _. -Again NT td x iyj 11 t t`1*,T.APPROVAL.OF. PERMIT Y' `' {ti "� • ",,fit=�x��• t +', 1 A 'Apprarsd t.! Isoord of Superrlsom of Orange County Flood Control District by order 'nii3 land°oglst f t{'d'sq.••�' ,t 1i^•C ; _ j.. },x��ti xry, ,i1�(�Frr. t 1� AnKt DAT[ GIAIAMANt ■OAAOM GOP tefupeltVttOA� ,M •{ trFr1 •.-fa M 1rb\ 4 . ,.X, I� {�•�ti`�`�:'rlr�.,^r't"l'�.ea r =1 t �r z ' !` t.r r 4 1 ������������ ' Ce 4 - .C1sUl.Eegine�r psitsuont to avi�+eiity d�i�9ated br:8aard of Svprrvl�ars�jy►rrRasO1�f s •r 7 t' r h w �1 F tr•it;u,�,nyx,•6 ��. v S � .� uvf.y� F , vs' � ,,��,. i .c•a, 4 .r ro .:,,,, r > r ,ty fir. y� 3��'�-t#y`�h 4. . „: r.••F xr'1•� t 24`"'}4�`l �+d''u�.�x'Y 'i 5epteutber;2' Xi t xr rf'i"7t��ri 3hiw+ro i�;°t "h�'a' � MAN r n OWNER �• ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT SPECIAL PROVISIONS __ao975 ' r � T Permit No. ;a: •••; K_•.: A. Permittre nhrec•s to provide L'teJ+ ccmtraeLor or c,unstrucLian Foreman an the job F=•_ ;, site n copy of they permit Mid n comple_e See of plans F.Lamped with flood con- , �� •• trol district apprcWai . Iermittco t:h:tl.l construct the permitted wanks in ac- cordance with district spee.lfical Luny and approved planar subject to inspection 2� and approval by d1stric•t Lnspuctor. Cert.iftc:ativn for 4111 mnte:rials and work including compact ion tests, shall l be, i'urr.ishod by permittee upon request by district ins ectar. Cert.11tenticn hall he made. b n ccrtiflad testing agency p `• Y 8 •'c;.��r or f irm acceptable to Lhc• dL.yLrLc•L. �''roe '• ' B No work shall he performed within distrie�L ri ht-of-wa without the full know- v.:. p 8 Y' ledge of district inspector, who :rhnli he given not less than 2's hours advsnce notice of the initiation of work a lLher by telephone (639-2433) or by mail ad- dressed to 10852 Douglas-, Rd. , Anaheim, CA 928*06. Said notice shall include the name and telephones number of permitLoo-ts nuthorized representative responsible 4. for coordination and supervision of the permitted work. .,'.;.: C. By acceptance of this perm.LL, pe:rmittee agrees to be responsible for the proper ".;,t-' operation, the maintenance ai1c1 the replacement of the flap gates, the discharge' lines, and all other devices for the purpose of preventing back flow of water from district's works. D. No open cutting; or removal of the fl.oad control channel section shall be per— mitted between October .15. and April 15. ' Permittee's contractor shall provide for the free flow of storm runoff in tho n:a{ a , . district channel net al.l times, and per.nittee al;recs to assume liability. far 'any;::} ; h, damage- that may be caused by contractor's failure to do so. - , Y• �.,� All excavations and backfill shall be compacted to a relative density: of.at:'l4a'at y 907: of the maximum density as specified in California Test Method No. 216.E •;,�';' 1' . Tx;. F. This permit shall become void in the event the use permitted is abandoned. for,. a period exceeding one year. v,,w ,r •: n�R��Jy,�Ff µ �t 'S z'u` :Upon commencement of permitted use all operations shall be completed W*ithin° ,`, "" + n .°x sixty (60) days. i ; Gc','P�rc►ittEe in accepting this permit stipulates that permittee is :fully::awaiMto 'the�rElationship between the probable flood stage elevations in" "distri.ci:!ta + ' r ty,and those .of the streets, and ocher improvements to be,;dratinedni:i o �� district�•s'.faci2it.y. Permittee agrees' to hold district, '-its 'of y=jd and:';agents harmless from an and All penalties, lialiilitids or.laaset3 �e9uY x ifrom ciaims' or court actions arising from damagd or injury-'to, personsyazYd o nSyr,..• r ty by ,Yeason;of . the installation, operation, or Failure o£•:the word$' to "6e';' 4.�etruct'ed under;:this permit. VZ 0.1 'fir""'`tl,�� � ry�,,ato"r ?.. :r `• s $,� + ..afi. .s.i+ «T ;� a ,{sa �,.•,�4 �yit{ Y Le'i,. {hiV.1.41`n:* l ,:. bLy st ;S{ 1 � � I7t���f+?t4}^;'��i`'Y?,Nj•�—w Rl1 r S��.#*rF,.ta `� { ;^ �x".` tL�'���� S .! I+, i Y�. !oti k, t�<,lT� � �• :s4��,�•:��ryiY 4;�q"k��i�v.avi?s'� •5'- .v J __ _ ..�... .W.._.......,..a...n...r.�.•wef ♦MlY!'Y.SurJ•i3th:LY.Yi M'•�liiiwitJ:JY'_d. ATTACHMENT NO. 6 HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULICS AND DESIGN STUDY Slater Channel (CO5SO4) Flood Hazard Mitigation Huntington Beach, California CC-1089 Submitted to: City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works-Engineering Division 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,California 92648 Prepared by: Simons,Li&Associatesjnc. Tetra Tech Inc.,Inf mtructure Southwest Group 17770 Cartwright Road, Suite 500 Irvine,California 92614 Under Supervision of.• ..: Q�pFESSION� q ,' * N0. 35894 �. J+,, Exp. 12-31-03 `Q C OF CA01 a Lan Weber,Ph.D.,P.E. Approved by: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS City Engineer ACCEPTED wa:. •. August 1999 DATES Z3 Av(- 20&c, BY: Revised June 200o Z. stB✓E Aell 'ae< ICA �•.: '+..�..K+e�,,,.•.euneetutYn�etmY�ea�:ftnas2flGa.noc . '':er„ A."' ti ,<e:..,.`Y:ivn: a. w..,.a.y :.....:a •au.N .+:•.X..rr„y_.. ....:........ ,,n . .:x.._...� reductions. Applying the Rational Method to the Slater Channel Basin which is over four square• miles in size and has significant lakes and open space areas for routing and attenuation,this method is expected to be overly conservative and produce overestimated discharge values. Table 2-1 Current Study 100-Year and 25-Year Peak Discharges for Slater Channel Location Node Acres Estimated 100-Year Estimated 25 Year 4 x Discharges Discharges y.: (cfs) (cfs) S•?ti Goldenwest Street 237 1,246 215 166 Edwards Street 331 1,892 620 477 Springdale Street 395 2,130 840 647 •A.: Graham Street 505 2,414 1,070 824 x Pump Station 525 2,706 1,310 1,009 - Table 2-2 Comparison of 100-year Discharges for MPD and Current Study Location Node. Acres 1993 MPD Current Study 100-Year Discharge Estimated 100-Year (cfs) Discharges "- (cfs) Goidenwest Street 237 1,246 2,451 215 Edwards Street 331 1,892 3,360 620 Springdale Street 395 2,130 3,788 840 Graham Street 505 2,414 4,181 1,070 Pump Station 525 2,706 4,597 1,310 stater channe/Flood Hazard Mdlgadon Project 2.4 RETENTION IN LAKES,PARKS,AND OPEN SPACES There are four major existing detention areas in the watershed tributary to the Slater Channel, which were incorporated into the hydrologic model presented in this report. These include Sully. Miller Lake,Huntington Lake,Talbert Lake,and Shipley Nature Center Lake as shown in Figure 1- 1 and Exhibit A. These facilities were used in attenuating the tributary hydrographs and reducing the flood peaks prior to routing them through the channel. This section provides a general description of the hydrologic conditions,inflow and outflow hydrographs(Figures 2-3 through 2-6) and basin depth hydrographs(Figures 2-7 through 2-10) at each detention area The rating curves (depth,outflow,and storage)and other pertinent information are included in Appendix A-4. The basin storage volumes were estimated using the 1998 topographic maps(used for Central Park Environmental Impact Report)confirmed and supplemented by the April 1999 survey.The outlet pipe invert elevations and diameters were obtained from the April 1999 survey. . 1 ly-_MiUer Lake Sully-Miller Lake is the largest retention facility in the drainage basin. It has a surface area of about 18.5 acres, located to the east of Goldenwest Street and north of Ellis Avenue(see Appendix Volume 1 sec.A4). The watershed tributary to the lake is-comprised of about 571 acres of mostly developed area. The lake has a maximum capacity of about 522 acre-feet(at 39.5-foot depth). The 100-year inflow volume to the lake was computed to be about 256 acre-feet. Outflow from the lake is via a 36-inch concrete steel pipe with an invert elevation of 6.6 feet located to the north,which flows in a mostly northerly direction prior to its terminus in Talbert Lake. To account for the continual retention of water,the computations began with a lake level of 2.5 feet. The 100-year design peak inflow to and outflow from the lake were computed to be about 735 cfs and 29 cfs, respectively(see Figure 2-3). The100-year maximum basin depth was estimated at 15.7 feet(water surface elevation of 18.2 feet mean sea level, see Figure 2-7). untie on Lake Huntington Lake is an approximately 13.2-acre(surface area)facility within the Huntington Central Park and is located north of Ellis Avenue between Edwards and Goldenwest Streets. The lake has a maximum capacity of about 81.0 acre-feet at a maximum depth of 6.5 feet(see Appendix Volume 1 Sec. A4). The lake intercepts runoff from an area of about 215 acres of partly developed and partly open land. The 100-year inflow to the lake is about 97.8 acre-feet(peak inflow of 338.3 ch). The 100-year outflow from the lake through the 30-inch pipe was calculated to be 14.6 cfs (see Figure 2-4). Outflow from the lake is conveyed to Slater Channel in a northerly direction via a 30- inch RCP. Computations began with the lake level equal to the outlet invert elevation of-8.04 feet msl. The level of water below the elevation of the outlet pipe before the storm occurs is not known. To be conservative,it was assumed this"dead storage"area was filled and no retention was considered in the computations. The 100-year maximum basin depth was estimated at 6.28 feet (water surface elevation of-1.72 feet mean sea level,Figure 2-8). Slater Channel Flood Hazard Mittantlon Project Talbert Lake This lake is comprised of approximately 51.3-acre(surface area)within Huntington Central Park. The lake is spread at a fairly shallow depth of less than five feet in the area to the east of Goldenwest Street and north of Talbert Avenue. Among the retention facilities within the project area,Talbert Lake has the largest tributary watershed of about 1064 acres of mostly developed area. The maximum capacity of the lake is about 159.2 acre-feet and the 100-year inflow volume was computed to be about 361 acre-feet(see Appendix Volume 1 Sec.A4). The 100-year inflow to and outflow from the lake were computed to be about 692 cfs and 170 cfs,respectively(see Figure 2-5). Outflow is via a 54-inch RCP which transitions to a 84-inch RCP under Goldenwest Street. This RCP outlets into the existing earthen reach of Slater Channel. Computations began with the lake level at the spillway elevation. The level of water below the elevation of the spillway before the storm occurs is not known. To be conservative it was assumed this"dead storage"area was filled and no retention was considered in the computations. The low-flow outlet(a 24-inch RCP) was not considered in the analysis because it is small and, at the time of the field investigation,was . submerged. The maximum basin depth during a 100-year flood was estimated at 2.43 feet over the spillway(see Figure 2-9). ShWIU Nature Center Lake Shipley Nature Center Lake is the smallest retention facility in the project watershed. This lake is also located within Huntington Central Park north of Huntington Lake,south of Slater Channel and west of Goldenwest Street. It has a surface area of about 10 acres and a depth of 4 ft(see Appendix Volume 1 Sec. A4). The 100-year inflow from the 52.5-acre parkland upstream of the lake was computed to be about 22.4 acre-feet(peak inflow of 78 ch,see Figure 2-6). Shipley Lake does not have an outflow pipe and the entire 100-year inflow hydrograph is expected to be stored in the lake (maximum capacity of 25.1 acre-feet). The local runoff storage is expected to occur prior to the arrival of the peak discharge at the channel;therefore,no backwater from Slater Channel was considered in the basin routing for Shipley Lake. The lake storage elevation was calculated to be lower than-2.0 feet mean sea level(msl),which is the approximate berm elevation separating the center from the existing channel section southerly bank. The 100-year maximum basin depth was estimated at 3.67 feet(water surface of-2.53 feet msl,see Figure 2-10). When the peak discharge arrives at the channel,the backwater may increase to 0.0 feet msl,which is higher than the existing channel bank elevation(see Hydraulic Analysis in Section 3) and spillover from the channel into the Nature Center lake may occur. This would result in a further reduction of the channel discharge. However,this process was overlooked in the hydrologic modeling for channel flow for conservative design purposes. Slater Channel Flood Hazard A4ltlgetion Project HvdroIdcrW4vdraullcs and Deslan Study Paae.15. 3.3 EXISTING HYDRAULICS A WSPG model was developed to simulate the existing hydraulic conditions. The hydraulic gradeline for a 100-year flood peak discharge and the channel invert and bank profiles are shown in the Preliminary Plans located at the end of the report. The 100-year water surface elevations at key stations are summarized in Table 3-1. Detailed input and output data for the hydraulic model are included in Technical Appendix D. It should be noted that all hydraulic analysis results presented in the report were obtained using the backwater control elevation of-6.0-ft msl at the downstream pump station. The existing pump station at the channel outlet currently has a limited capacity of 620 cfs with the existing five pumps in place. Without improvements to the existing pump station,flows in excess of 620 cfs will cause the water surface to rise above the channel banks which ranges from-1.0 to 0.0 f1 msl along the channel(see Preliminary Plans).This will significantly limit the potential for flood hazard mitigation since the 100-year flow will overtop the bank and the downstream backwater(near the pump station)can be higher than most of the catch basins,streets, and housing pad elevations in the upper reach. No feasible solutions may be derived for reducing the existing flood hazard without sufficient pump discharge at the outlet.The hydraulic analysis presented in this study report and Preliminary Plans assumes that the existing pump station will be improved to convey the 100-year flood peak discharge of 1,300 cfs at a maximum pump control elevation of- 6.0 feet MSL. Under the assumption that the pump station is modified to provide 1;300-cfs capacity for a 100- year flood,the existing concrete channel downstream of Springdale Street has capacity to convey the 1,300-cfs 100-year peak discharge. The existing earthen channel upstream of Springdale Street, however,is inadequate for a 100-year flood even with pump improvements to discharge the 100- year peak discharge.The water surface profile may be lower than the bank elevations;however,it is generally higher than the street and catch basin elevations and it is higher than finished floor elevations in some areas(see Table 3-1). Backwater from the channel through lateral storm drains will inundate the residential areas and may cause significant hazard to structures,vehicles, and residents. The damaging floods are not limited to the 100-year flood;flows in excess of the 25-year flood are higher than the catch basin and street elevations for some lateral drain locations. Through hydraulic analysis, a major hydraulic constraint was identified at the Springdale Street box culvert. The 100-year flood water surface elevation increases 1.51 feet through the 116-foot-long box culvert,which is significantly steeper than the remaining channel reaches and box culverts (see Table 3-1 and Preliminary Plans and note that the water surface elevation changes from-4.12 ft msl at the Downstream of Springdale Street culvert to 2.61 feet msl at the upstream end of the culvert) This implies that the Springdale Street culvert requires modification for efficient flow conveyance in order to reduce backwater. The culverts at Edwards Street and Galicia Street will be sealed by the flow;however,the backwater increase through these box culverts is minor and does not require replacement. According to the hydraulic analysis,replacement of these culverts will not significantly reduce the water surface elevations. Slater Channel Flood Hazard Mitigation Project HydrologyMydraulics and Design Study Page-26- VA ..:w+-w JAu.ur r:. fy'1VI2 yR��-y�y. .Y..�f3:.+�iwA.. ...�...: .....::. t.:.Y wN'j:.Y'�! 4^nr-l...a l•%', . =".a.. ;.'e.,u. .. ... ... ........... ....... ....... ...... .. , 4.0 EWROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS 4.1 PUMP STATION A preliminary investigation shows that it is feasible to modify and upgrade the existing pump station to handle the required 1,300-cfs discharge under a 100-year flood. The existing five pumps can be increased to a+5 pitch and the additional three pumps can be designed and installed to obtain the required capacity. It is recommended that before any adjustments or additions are attempted to the pump station a comprehensive study should be conducted so that all opportunities are explored. The facility should be examined in detail to determine the condition of the existing pumps,gearboxes,and engines and a plan should be developed to optimize the cost of the facility (Capital and O&K. In reviewing the facility for the increased flows,several observations were made about the existing facility. 1. The inlet to the pump station is at a 45-degree angle to Slater Channel. As a result, an eddy will form and trap some of the floating debris. This will also cause the . screens to be"loaded"more on one side than the other creating an imbalanced flow into the facility and unnecessary maintenance of the screens. 2. Based on the pump curves of the 42 inch Johnston pumps that are installed in the facility and using a starttstop water surface control elevation of-6.0 feet MSL,the required submergence to prevent the formation of vortices is 126 inches.The facility at high water only has 101 inches of submergence and at low water 31 inches. Therefore vortices will form The vortices will cause the pumps to nun rough and vibrate as the impeller cuts through the air rope of the vortices. Long-team operation with this condition will cause premature failure of the pumping components. It is recommended that this situation be studied in detail either in the existing station or through the use of a model. The results may show that a vortex suppression plate installed beneath the pump suction or modifications to the structure such as the intake configuration would be beneficial to the operation and provide a more efficiently running pump. 3. Through a comprehensive examination of the facility,it t be determined that � certain pieces of equipment are in good condition and should be retained. Under this scenario,in order to achieve the required pumping capacity, the new pumps and engines may need to be slightly larger to compensate for the reduction in pumping for the units retained. 4. Reviewing the As-Built drawings, it appears that the existing engines are too large for further expansion within the existing space in the engine room. If larger engines are required to meet the horsepower requirements of the pumps, some structural modifications to the pump station will be necessary. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As part of this study, an investigation of the Slater Pump Station and Channel system and the surrounding watershed was made. The physical characteristics of the watershed that contributes runoff to the channel were investigated. It was determined that the existing lakes provide significant attenuation to the runoff,which results in approximately a 50%reduction in discharges compared to estimated discharges without attenuation as shown in the 1993 Master Plan of Drainage(MPD). This attenuation factor, as well as updated hydrologic methods and information, was used to determine the discharges at various locations along the channel. An analysis of the pump station showed that modifications to the existing pump station are needed in order to provide adequate pumping capacity during a 100-year flood(1,300 cfs)to limit the backwater elevation created upstream of the pump.This modification includes the addition of three pumps and alterations to the five existing pumps. These changes to the pump station are needed to provide a reasonable backwater elevation at Springdale Street for upstream earthen channel improvement. A hydraulic analysis of the channel was made to identify the flood capacity deficiencies present in Slater Channel The results of this analysis showed that the culvert at Springdale acts as a constriction and causes water to back up on the upstream side of the culvert. The earthen channel upstream of Springdale Street was determined to have an insufficient capacity to carry the 100-year discharge. The existing concrete channel downstream of Springdale Street was determined to have... adequate capacity to carry the 100-year discharge assuming a water surface control elevation of -6.0 ft msl at the pump station is held. The recommended modification at Springdale Street is a double 9.0'x 9.0' RCB. This will alleviate the backwater condition caused by the existing undersized culvert. The two recommended channel alternatives are Alternative C, a trapezoidal channel with concrete side slopes and an earthen bottom and an earthen channel with nprap on the north bank in the reach next to Shipley Nature Center and Alternative E,a fully concrete-lined,trapezoidal channel bottom and an earthen channel with r*ap on the north bank in the reach next to Shipley Nature Center. The water surface elevations associated with these alternatives are shown in Columns C and E, respectively, of Table 4-2. Either of these alternatives will reduce flood hazards in areas adjacent to the channeL The design basis for improvements is to confine floodwaters within the street,at or below the top of curb elevation. This will significantly reduce the flooding depth on the street and house pads will be at least one foot above the flood elevations. This will meet or exceed the city, county,and FEMA requirements for flood protection. The rectangular channel(shown in Column D of Table 4-2,pg. 32)was not considered as a recommended alternative due to significant excavation and disturbance to the existing system, higher costs in construction and maintenance,feasibility of construction and maintenance access, and marginal benefit in lowering water surface elevations. Slater Channel Flood Hazard MhJgatlon Project Nvd►eiaav/Hvdrsulks and Design Study Page-33- ATTACHMENT NO. 7 1 1 HYDROLOCY REFORT NO. C05SO4-1 HYDROLOGY REPORT SLATER STORM CHMNEL FACILITY NO. CO SO4 ENTIRE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND SLATER PUMP STATION APPROVED: �.✓ SUBMITTED: r Gi Hydrology Section E eer Engineeriag Services Division. - Development Otange County Environmental Management Agency H. G. Osborne, Director September, 1976 HYDROLOGY REPORT SLATER STORM CHANNEL FACILITY NO. C05504 ENTIRE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND SLATER PUMP STATION Purpose This report provides the local 100-year flood hydrograph for Slater Pump Station at t.zd lower end of Slater Storm Channel, Facility No. C05SO4, which discharges into East GArden Grove-Wi.ntersburg Channel, Facility No. COS. General Descr .ption of Drainage Area The. 2620-acre (4.04-square mile)-drainage area which is in the City of Hunting- ton Beach is generally bounded by Warner Avenue on the north, Beach Boulevard on the east, Garfield Avenue on the south and Facility No. COS on the west (Exhibit 1) . There are two man-made recrea iana lakes within the drainage area, namely, Talbert Lake and huntinaton Laka., and an _operating sand and gravel pit which regulate the flow in Slater Storm Channel . The 680-acre drainage area tributary to Talbert Lake (excluding the gravel pit drainage area) is mostly urbanized including a large city park. The area is generally rolling hill: wish elevations varying from about 60 feet near Beach Boulevard and Taylor Drive to -2 feet at Talbert Lake giving the area an average slope of 12 feet per ICOO feet. The lake is drained by an ungated 54-inch RCP into the uppar and of Slater Storm Channel. The 210-acre: drainage area tributary to Huntington Lake i.s comprised of a large city park and oil fields with very little other development. The area is hilly with elevations varying from about 95 feet near Garfield Avenue to -5 feat at the lake giving the area an average slope of 24 feet per- 1000 feat. The lake is drained by a gated 30-inch RCP directly into Slater Storm Channel. The 550-acre: drainage area tributary to the sand and gravel pit located near the intersection of .Ellis Avenue and Golden West Street is comprised mostly of oil fields with some commercial-industrial tracts and single family dwell- ings. The area is generally low rolling hills with elevations varying from 125 feet at Clay Street to -1 foot at the water surface elevation of the sand and gravel pit giving the area an average slope of 25 feet per 1000 feet. The pit is drained by an ungated 36-inch RCP into Talbert Lake, The 1180-acre drainage area downstream of Talbert and Huntington Lakes which drains into Slater Storm Channel is almost completely urbanized with single family dwellings. Elevations vary from about 20 feet near Talbert Avenue to sea level at Facility No. C05 giving the drainage area an average slope of 2 feet per 1000 feet. Existing Drainage Imprc•vements The existing Slater Storm Channel and Pump Station were built in 1966 by the City of Huntington Beach. The channel i.s an earthen trapezoidal section with 1-1/2 : 1 side: slopes and extends easterly from the pump station at Facility No. C05 to Golden West Avenue. The existing pump statio-m-has four pumps each with a capacity of 147 cfs . The invert a evation at the pump station is -12.5 feet and for Facility No. C05 at the confluence with the pump station is -J_(1 fPat ._ There are many existing city storm drains as wall as the two lakes and the sand and gravel pit as described above which have been integrated into the storm drain system. Proposed Drainage. Improvements The City of Huntington Beach proposes a maximum of eight pumps at Slater Pump Station producing a total capacity of 1176 cfs. The ,u ,.mate capacity is 84 o`�t a local 100-year peak discharge of 1400 cfs determined in this report for the pump station*. The proposed channel upstreac of the pump station by the City of Huntington Beach which is to be designed for 940 cfs appears to have sufficient capacity usi.ng freeboard to convey the local 100-year discharge to the pump station. Alternate to increased Pump Station Capacity If the capacity of Slater Pump Station was limited to six pumps th. storage volume required for flows above 882 cfs for the local 100-year flood hydro- graph (Exhibit 3) would be 10.7 acre-feet. This volume can be stored in 1.2 miles of an arterial street flooded to a depth one foot above the top of curb. The drainage area south of Slater Channel and west of Edwards Street appears to have sufficiently flat streets with low elevations in relation to the water surface in Slater Channel that it would provide this storage volume and more without flooding homes . As can be seen from the local 100-year flood hydro- graph, this flooded condition would probably last for approximately 30 minutes. The Huntington Beach area has been subject to short-duration very intense rain storms. Records show that recent storms of up to 3 hours duration with rainfall amounts, up to 2 inches have occurred over small areas. Based on such an occurrence a local 2-inch rainflood was determined and is shown on Exhibit 4. The volume of this hydrograph above 882 cfs is 27 acre feet which can be stared in about 3 miles of arterial streets flooded to a depth one foot above the top of curb. A detailed study of possible street. storage versus increased pump station' capacity should be made prior to determination of final facility configuration. Basis for Determination of Runoff The hydrograph at -the pump station (ExhLb it 3). was computed by the pros •lures set forth in the Orange County Flood Control District Hydrology Manual dated October 1973 for determination of the local 100-year flood and using reservoir routing techniques for Huntington and Talbert Lakes and the sand and gravel pit. The hydrologic computations are filed in the Environmental Management Agency's Hydrology Section. The local 100-year 3-hour isobyets and the land use The retardation of the runoff of the local 100-year flood by the Huntington and Talbert Lakes and the sand and gravel pit is very effective ir reducing the peak discharge at the pump station as 56% of the drainage area is upstream of rhase, fa.:ilities . Although no detailed surveys of the lakes and gravel pit are available , timat.es of the storage capacities, initial wat-r surface elevations and outlet .:charges of these fa=ilities wore made to determine the controlled outflow to er Stc:rm Channel . The peak in;`low to the ,and ,and gravel pit is 800 cfs and j. , ntrolled to a peak outflow of 90 cfs. The peak inflcw to Talbert Lake is 1100 -Ls whi.cli includes the outflow from the sand and gravel pit and is controlled to a peak outflow of 11.0 cfs. The peak inflow to Huntington Lake is 280 cfs and is con- trolled to a peak ocitlow of 10 cfs. Guides used in the preparation 'of this report to determine drainage flow patterns, drainage boundaries, and anticipated ultimate land use were: 1. City of Huntington Beach a. Master Plan Storm Drain System Map dated March 4, 1975 . b. Land Use Element Map dated December 11 , 1973. 2. Aerial photographs flown March 1975 . 3. .Field investigations. Previous Hydrology Studies The Hydrology Section has not made any previous hydrology studies based on the local 100-year flood for this facility. Exhibits Drainage Area Map Exhibit 1 Land Use Map - Exhibit 2 Slater Storm Channel at Slater Pump Station Exhibit 3 Local 100-year Flood Hydrograph Slater Storm Channel at Slater Pump Station Exhibit "4 Local 2-Inch Rain Flood Hydrograph RSW:rm35la(5) t�Ra.iN�.GE ARP, �62U fi�C. RAINFALL 3-HOUR STORM I.4G WiCH. RUNOFF i Q l-kL VOLUME 17 U f�.F NOTE: ' UPSTREAM C^1` -rRI+L- HUN'T'INGTON LAKE ) J 1� SRN1]-G�?AN.,'E'L P I PEAK 1NELOW Iytt•?0 CFS i �- FACILITY NO. C05604 SLATER STORK, HAraNE' -. =T AT i SLATER PLUMP STATION LOCAL I00 YEAR FLOOD TIMI= IN HOURS 2620 AC. Ili FALi . 3-H,--.) JFR, -STO 1-A 1.94 INCH. GWV L -.T�/1`. v�'✓L.�.i tri c� PE�.K.INFL4'"� I�;iJCF'=% NOTE : � HUMTlW ToN LAKE; `rALSF-RT LAKE )NMI) I ItiOb k,V-4D- ruRlA E:L r ITI IZOO - ' e00 FACILITY NO.Go.5SO4 SLATE P. STORM ("JH ikNIN E L - AT 1 SLA f ER PUMP STATION 400 LOCAL ?--INCH RAIN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH o 4 y 2 3 L4 3 6 7 8 `q ' ! 'TIME IN VTOURS I ATTACHMENT NO. 8 PROJECT REPORT FOR EAST GARDEN GROVE — WINTERSBUIRG (CO5) AND OCEANVT.£W (C06) CHANNELS Prepared for ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOOD PROGRAM DIVISION Prepared 1 WILLIAMSON & SCHMID Submitted. by Lj Richard X Schmid, Pririd a1 In Charge RCE No. 12261,exp. 131/97 Dec ember, 1 ' of approximately 400 cis below the spillway (650 cfs to top-of-levee). There is about 106 acre-feet of dead storage below the outlet. West Street Basin -. West Street Basin (C05B01) is an "V shaped basin of approximately 6.8 acres. The basin is owned by the Orange County Flood Control District but the three inlets (66" RCP, 48" RCP, and 18" CSP) and the outlet (24" RCP) are owned by the City of Garden Grove. The 24" RCP outlet is connected to Facility C05P01 in West Street. Due to its insufficient basin and outlet size, the basin has minimal retarding affects on any major storms. Total tributary area to the basin is about 351 acres. SIater Pump Station - The Slater Pump Station is located adjacent to the C05 Channel near Graham Street and is owned and operated by the City of Huntington Beach. There are currently five pumps each with a capacity of approximately 140 cfs for a total capacity of 700 cfs. There are three available bays for future expansion of the pump facility. The existing capacity of the Slater Storm Channel which feeds the pumps is 1400 efs. 3.3. EXISTING AND PAST COMWJ.MENTS T"ne existing and past commitments pertaining to the COS and C06 Channels made through agreements, permits., deeds.. licenses, etc were researched and provided by the District. These coznmitrnents included committed water surface elevations, joint use agreements and surface rights agreements. The committed water surface elevations for the C05 and C06 Channels are summarized in Table 3.3 and 3.4, respectively. Also provided in the tables are the District's reference numbers which indicate the.year of the commitment. These elevations were used as maximum water surface limits in the hydraulic analysis of the alternatives (see Section 4). M Table 3.3 C05 - COMIy rMD WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS Water Surface Elevation OCEMA tation 61.) Reference # *57+45 9.0 10/92 *123+76 9.5 10/92 11151+89 10.5 13192 167+23 11.2 13/77 174+83 12.4 13/77 *178+19 . 13.0 13/92 178+20 IZ9 23/84 185t00 14.1 41/84 189+33 143 19/80 191+00 14.8 41/84 239+25± 23.1 20/71 251+50± 24.7 7/71 M+76 25.34 20/77 255+30 26.5 27/73 261+00 26.6 24/71 271+30 29.0 27/75 281+95.6 28.3 30/7I 282+25 31.5 27/75 283+30 31.5 30/71 284+03 31.9 24/71 284+62.14 33.7. 24/71 313+18 36.9 32/78 337+89± 39.2 34/79 342+69 40.6 34/79 392+13 49.5 8/72 402+80.95 525 27/83 424+46 59.8 18/79 431+25 61.3 21/77 438+07 64.0 27/79 454+98.60 69.0 27/83 . 474+00 74.8 2/70 480+60 763 9/78 ' 533+98 96.0 22/86 358+33 105.0 34/81 563+86 107.0 29/85 689+67 141.0 9/90 *new 7/7/92 21 Fable 3.4 C06 - COMMITTED WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS Water Surface Elevation OCEMA Sta_ tion , (MSL) Reference # 9+82t 17.9 22/79 9+82.19 21.5 25/87 16+50 to 24+36 18.9 to 20.3 20/79 18+78t 17.85 3/78 32+50 24.06 4/88 45+52t 21.5 14/78 45+60t 21.0 37/78 46+20 26.44 4/88 52+44.61 23.3 4/84 53+10.27 235 4/84 76+37.26 24.5 45/84 80+00 & 85+59 25.3 24/76 85+30.93 25.3 45/84 86+25 29.0 9/75 89+06 29.0 9/T 97+63. 29.0 45/73 107+00 27.2 12/70 I21+85 30.5 15/71 128+851 3.3.0 22/75 139+32 34.3 29/69 139+67 30.4 20/73 140+89 31.5 20/73 200+65t 40.0 28/73 206+96t 39.4 14/b9 213+46t 39.5 14/69 There are currently 36 Comritted Water Surface Elevations identified for C05 and 26 for C06 which have been previously identified in Tables 3.3 and 3.4, respectively. This information is repeated in Tables 5,5 and 5.6 and compared with the computed water surface elevations for the recommended alternative. The Committed Water Surface Elevations and the computed water surface profile are also shown on the plan and profile sheets. With the exception of three locations along CO3 (see Table 5.5) and two locations along C06 (see Table 5.6), all ==anitted water surfaces are met within 6 inches. Three other locations along COS and four along C06 were exceeded by less than 6 inches and were assumed insignificant. Of the three violations along COS, the first is at Sta. 125*76 which is the outlet from the Shields Pump Station in the City of Huntington Beach. This facility has been previously identified as deficient and is proposed to be improved in the City's 1443 Master Plan of Drainage. The 0.7 foot exceedance water surface is not significant and could be accounted for in the future improvement to the pump station. The next location is Sta. 255+30 which is the old outlet for the Newland Storm Channel (Facility CO5S01) upstream of the W5 Freeway. This facility has now been redirected to the downstream side of the 1-405 Freeway, thus eliminating the control at the upstream location. The third.location is at Sta. 261+00 which was exceeded by 1.6 feet. According to .the existing improvement plans and field reviews there is no facility outlet at this location and was, therefore, ignored. Existing lateral facilities at the two locations of violations of the committed (r water surfaces on C06 (.5ta. 107+00 and S tL 213+46)"could not be identified'and 1 were, therefore, ignored. lEven though the above .five committed water. surface violations were concluded L to be insignificant, the appropriate cities should be notified of the proposed increases upon approval of this project report r Table 3.5 COS - COMPARISON OF COMMITTED TO 04 COMPUTED WATER SURFACE Computed Committed 100-Year Water Surface Water Surface Station -Elevation SAlternative 8) 57+43 9.0 8.0 12546 9.5 10-T (City of Huntington Beach) 131+89 10.5 10.9t (City of Huntington Beach) 167+23 11.2 11.4t (City of Huntington Beach) 174+83 12.4 11.5 178+19 13.0 11.3 178+20 12_9 11.2 185+00 14.1 12.1 189+35 14.5 10.1 191+00 14.8 10.5 239+25:h 23.1 20.5 251+50t 24.7 23.0 2+76 25.34 23.1 255+30 26.5 28.0' (City of Westminster) 261+00 26.6 28.2' (City of Westminster) 271+30 29.0 27.2 281+95.6 28.3 25.8 282+25 31.5 27.4 283+30 31.5 29.7 284+03 31.9 30.1 284+62.14 33.7 30.3 313+18 36.9 34.7 r 337+89t 39.2 37.0 342+69 40.6 36.3 392+13 49.5 4a8 402+80.95 52-5 52.9t(City of Santa Ana) 424+46 59.8 57.9 431+25 61.3 59.4 438+07 64.0 59.9 454+98.60 69.0 66.3 474+00 XS X5 480+60 76.9 75.8 533+98 96.0 . 89.6 559+33 105.0 100.2 563+86 107.0 102.7 689+67 141.0 - exceeded by 6 inches Cr more t exceeded by less than 6 inches 123 s Table 5.6 C06 - COMPARISON OF C0MMtT'I'ED TO COMPUTER WATER SURFACE Camguted Committed 100-Year Water Surface Water Surface t i n Elevation (Alternative 9+82 t 17.9 16.1 9+82-19 21.5 16,1 16+50 to 24+56 18.9 to 20.3 16.1 to 17.1 18+78t 17.85 16.5 32+50 24.06 18.4 42+52t 21.5 20.7 45+601 21.0 20.7 46.20 26.44 20.7 52+44.61 23.3 21.5 53+10.27 23.5 21.6 76+37.26 24.5 23.5 80+00 25.5 ?5.7t (City of Huntington Bach) 85+30.93 '25.5 25.9t(City of Hunt.11each/Fountain Valley) 85+59 23.5 26.0t(City of Hunt.Beach/Fountain Valley) 86+25 29.0 26.1 89+06 29.0 26.3 97+63 29.0 27.8 107+00 27.2 27.r (City of Fountain Valley) 1=+85 30.5 29.8 128+85t 33.0 30.2 139+52 34.3 30.4 139+£7 30.4 29.2 140+89 31.5 29.6 200+65.+ 40.0 38.7 i 206+961 39.4 39.6t(City of Fountain Valley) ■ 213+46t 39.5 41.1'(City of Fountain Valley) exceeded by 6 inches or more t exceeded by less than 6 inches 124 SECTION 13 Construction Phasing The objective of construction phasing is to prioritize the construction of the recommended project components such that maximum benefits for the watershed are received as soon as possible. In a traditional construction phasing program new or upgraded retarding facilities and/or diversion schemes are constructed first. Construction then continues from the most downstream reach to the most upstream reach. This traditional phasing program does not consider, however, extreme system deFiciencies in upstream reaches. It may be more beneficial to the system as a whole to construct some upstream portion(s) first. To examine this possibility the capacities of existing system reaches must be evaluated in terms of entire system operation. Of course, any potential departure from the traditional phasing program must also be analyzed in P P gP ti Y terms of a potential worsening of conditions downstream. In order to do this the following tasks were accomplished: 1) Determine 50-, 25-, 10- and 5-year (expected value) event peak discharges for the ultimate channel system using previously developed ultimate channel system hydrology models. 'These models assume all ultimate t-year Bows reach the channel without obstruction in the local drainage system. 2 The hydraulic madel for the existing channel system was run for reach ultimate t-Y ear channel event to determine order of breakouts. Starting with the 5-yeas event, as each breakout occurs, (i.e.,flow depth exceeds channel height) the ultimate channel section was inserted at that point. Once all of the 5-year event deficient facilities have been replaced, the 10-year model is checked for breakouts. This process is continued until the entire ultimate channel system is in place. 160 3. The priority order of construction phasing, as determined in task 2, was evaluated such that no upstream improvement had negative impacts on existing downstream.reaches. Based solely on the results of the incremental hydraulic models (5 - 30-year), the construction phasing for C05 and C06 would be as described in Tables I3.1 aad 13.2. respectively, and shown on Exhibit IS. Table 13.1 CONSTRVC'I'ION PHASING FOR C05 PHASE I (5-YE62) R@ach Station__ to Station Length(M 2a b 164+73.26 to 183+41.81 2,069 L.F. (Goldenwest) (Gothard) 3b,c, d,a 223+5253 to 252+90.00 2,037 LF. (Beach) (405 Freeway) 4a 253+66.35 to 270+80 1,314 L.F. I-405 Frwy Basin (I-405 Frwy) (Quartz 4e,f 285+06.28 to 397+00.16 11,194 L.F. Uri (Magnolia/Edinger) (Euclid) Raster S +46 to --- 78 596+81 Basin + 1 6 +21.94 1 SI 5968 .00 to OS ,141 LF. 18,833 L.F. . z at Table 73.1 CONSTRTJCTION PHASING FOR C05 `w (Continued) PHASE 11 (10-YEAR) Reach Station to Station,, Lensch Utz lb, c,Za 60+56.00 to 164+73.26 10,417 L.F. (Slater Pump Station) (Goldenwest) 2b,3a 185+41.81 to 233+5Z.55 3,$11 L.F. (Cothard) (Beach) 4c.d 271+31.49 to '285+06.23 1,375 LF. (Quartz) (Magnolia/Edinger) 5j-m 397+00.16 to 446+03.73 4,904 LF. 6a,b,c (Euclid) (D/S Newhope) 74,b 453+07 to 486+25.65 3,119 LF. 8a-e (Hazard/Newhope) (Westminster) 9d 513+82.07 to 315+34.66 153 LF. (Harbor) (Harbor) 23,779 L.F. PHAS III (25-YEAR) Reach Station to Station Len¢th (Et) Ib 36+18.28 + 4 L.F. to 60 56.00 Z, 8 3 (Oil Road Bridge) (Slater Pump Station) 8F,g,9a,b,c 486+25.65 to 513+62.07 2,756 L.F. (Westminster) (Harbor) 9i,'J• k 543+50.35 to 55Z+01.61 652 L.F. (Pearce) (Garden Grove Frwy) 12b,c 616+98.17 to 622+03.66 506 L.F. (Allard) 6,352 LF. pi I6Z Table 13.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASING FOR. COS (Continued) PHASE IV (54-YEAR) Reach Station to tacion Length la,b 6+23.42 to 36+18.28 Z995 L.F. (Cates) (Oil Road Bridge) 9S,h 534+01.34 to 545+50.35 1,149 L.F. ('Trask) (Pearce) 4,144 LE. CHASE V {100-YEAR) React] Station to Station_ reth ( ) ' 9% F 315+34 66 to 534+01.34 1,866 LF. (Harbor) (Trask) 12a 608+21.94 to 616+98.17 876 G.F. (Allard) 2,742 L..F. 163 Table 13.2 CONSTRUCTION PHASING FOR Ca6 PHASE I (5-YEAR) Ruch Station to Station Length (ft) FHASE_1T(10 Reach Station _ to Stan Length 00 13e,f,g 52+44.90 to 68+66.70 1,622 L.F. (Newland) (Ross) . 1,622 L.F. PHASE III (gEaAR) Reach Station t`.._ Station Length (t) 13a,b 3+00 -to 27+37.75 Z433 L.F. (C05) (Beach) 13G d 27+37.75 to 52+44.90 Z,507 L.F. (Beach) (Newlaed) 15a,b,c,d 76+37.26 to 97+13.67 2,067 L.F. (I-Q5 Frwy) 7,021 L.F. 164 1P°' • Table 13.2 bow CONSTRUCTION PHASING FOR C06 (Continued) _ PHASE ILt (50-YEAR) Reach stalier is __ Station LenLth � r 19 PHASE V (100-YE AR) Reach Station to Station _`gt.h tit) 16a 97+13.67 to 113+43.86 1630 LF. (1403 Frwy) (Bushard) I7a,b II4+55S2 to 134+67.20 2,512 LF. (Eushard) (Brookhurst) IBa,b,c 140+89 to 193+24 51235 LE. (Mile Square Park) I9a,b 294+55.60 to 217+94.00 2,338 LF. (Euclid) (Newhope) } 11,715 LF. For C05, the proposed phasing recommends improvements start in the middle of the channel system (Reaches 3, 4 and 5) and then progress upstream and downsftWU in subsequent phases. A concern with this would be any adverse impacts on the existing channel downstream of the Phase I improvements. The most significant adverse impact would be an increase is flow in the downstream channel due to the elimination of a choke or restricted section upstream This could create or at least increase overbank flow for major storm events le., events exceeding the existing downstream capacity) within the unimproved channel reaches. In this particular case, however, there is no choke or restriction that would block major event flows from continuing downstream (both inside and outside of the channel). The L 165 � i w + • point at which the excess flows breached the channel banks might move downstream, but there would be no increase in the flood flows'themselves. The.flooding patterns should continue along the same paths as previously existed within the unimproved reaches. The benefit 6f the upstream d improvements, of course, would be the elimination of flood waters from storms exceedingthe existin upstream 1 . S P channe capacity. The proposed phasing of C06 is more in line.with the traditional approach of improving the downstream reaches first. The reach through Mile Square Park is shown as a Phase V improvement when, in actuality, portions of the existing „channel." were exceeded in a 10-year event. Because the grass tined channel is part of the park amenity, the channel limits are not dearly defined. The limits specified.in the hydraulic model were based on averaged sections when the side slopes, maximum depths and channel widths varied If flows exceed these limits it just means a little more of the park (including the golf course) will be flooded for a short period of time. The proposed ultbnate improvements may actually not be "needed" at all as long as the additional flooding through the park is acceptable. This reach was, therefore, given a j� how priority. A more detailed investigation should be completed during the C design stage of the project Based on the phasing recommendations given in Tables 13.1 and 13.2, the preliminary costs identified in Sectioxi 8 were distributed into the various phases and are listed in Table 13.3. Table 13.3 SU14flVtARY OF CONSTRUCTION COST BY PHASE To I Dollars Phase 05 C06 Total I $42.305,060 — 542,3051060 II 857,328.980 $938,324 S58,267,304 III $73,668,940 $2,295,393 $15,964,333 N 511,476,148 — $11,476,148 V SZ489,750 $Z9W53 $3,438,7M TOTAL 5126,768,878 56,182,670 513Z951,548 kv 166 r ATTACHMENT NO. 9 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication e Planning Department r TO: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning DATE: June 28, 2002 SUBJECT: FEMA APPROVES POTENTIAL REDUCTION IN:FLOODPLAN The City has received notification that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has approved a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) that ultimately could result in approximately 1,400 acres consisting of 7,000 housing units.as well as numerous businesses being taken out of the floodplain. An additional. 1,200 acres of residential and commercial properties would have their base flood elevations substantially reduced. The affected area extends along the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel from the proposed Parkside Estates residential project, located west of Graham and north of the channel, northeast to the proposed Bella.Terra project at Huntington Center.. A map of the affected area is"attached: The CLOMR was issued as a result of two years of detailed hydrology analysis by Shea.Homes, project proponent for the Parkside Estates project;:and review by City'and FEMA staff. The Bella Terra.project also contributed to the analysis as the reduction/elimination of the.floodplain. would benefit it as well. The analysis demonstrates that with improvements to the.flood control channel and drainage the potential flood hazard is substantially reduced. The improvements include an increase in the storm drain pipe system serving Graham Street, an additional pump in the Slater Pump Station and sheet piling installed within the Channel adjacent to the Shea property. Shea proposes to_complete these improvements as part of its project. P.FEMA will initiate anew Flood.Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)for the affected area when it is demonstrated that the improvements are completed. The new FIRM would result in elimination of flood insurance or reduction in flood insurance premiums for a significant number of properties. Flood insurance premium rates are lower for properties that have a base flood elevation established as opposed to rates for the current Flood Zone A,which has no base flood elevation established. A refund of the current year's policy flood insurance will be available to property owners whose property is removed from the floodplain by publication of a new FIRM. Attachment xc: ill Workman,Assistant City Administrator ✓Robert Beardsley,Public Works Director Scott Hess,Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren,Principal Planner. . Ricky Ramos,Associate Planner Darnell & ASSOCIATES. INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING &TRAFFIC ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM 10 0 DATE: September 9, 2002 F�� TO: Mr.Robert Stachelski, City of Huntington Beach _M Ms. Mary Beth Broeren, City of Huntin n Beach IW— �Q FROM: Bill E. Darnell,P. 'C D&A Ref.No: 960404 V RE: Verification of Parkside Estates Base Traffic This memorandum is prepared in response to questions raised regarding traffic volume data presented in our traffic study for Parkside Estates, dated June 27, 1997 (revised March 29, 2001). To verify and confirm our analysis, we collected new traffic data and reanalyzed the data for comparison against the results reached in our previous report. In summary,we have concluded there are no additional impacts and,in fact,daily traffic on Graham Street is lower than previously reported. EXISTING CONDITIONS In September 2002, new traffic counts were obtained at the following intersections: Bolsa Chica/Warner Graham Street/Wamer Graham Street/Glenstone ' Graham Street/Slater Additionally, 24-hour machine counts were obtained for Graham Street between Warner and Glenstone and between Glenstone and Slater. These counts were taken on Wednesday, September 4 and 5,2002, and include traffic on opening day for Marine View Middle School. For reference, the traffic counts from our 1997 report (which represented 1996 traffic data) is provided on Figure 1. The 2002 traffic volume data is provided on Figure 2. 1446 FRONT STREET • SUITE 300 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 PHONE: 619-233-9373 • FAX: 619-233-4034 E-mail: BD492@aol.com Mr. Robert Stachelski Ms. Mary Beth Broeren September 9,2002 Page 2 SHORT TERM CONDITIONS The short term condition established in the 1997 report was revised in March 2001 to account for additional projects which were anticipated but not built, including Meadowlark (350 dwelling units), and the proposed Parkside Estates project. Since publication of our previous reports with 1996 traffic count data, these projects have been constructed with the exception of Parkside Estates. Therefore, the 2002 traffic count data includes traffic associated with these units. The cumulative condition for the 2002 data, therefore, includes the addition of project related (Parkside Estates) traffic and 15 students from Parkside Estates being transported to Marine View Middle School and the parents' return home, and can be compared to the short term condition presented in the 1997/2001 report. The short term traffic volumes from the 1997 report (which include Meadowlark, Holly-Seacliff and the proposed Parkside Estates) are provided on Figure 3. The short term traffic volumes representing 2002 traffic data plus the proposed Parkside Estates project are provided on Figure 4. COMPARISON OF 1996 DATA VERSUS 2002 DATA Intersections An analysis comparison was provided between the data from the 1997/2001 report (based on 1996 data) and the newly obtained 2002 data. Intersections were reanalyzed with the new volumes using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology at signalized intersections, and the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM) for stop-controlled intersections. The results of the intersection analysis are shown on Table 1. Table 2 summarizes the actual ICU or HCM differential between 1996 and 2002. As shown on Table 2, there is no significant difference in level of service at intersections with the new traffic volumes applied. Figure 5 provides a graphical comparison of the 1996 versus 2002 traffic analysis results. Figure 6 provides a graphical comparison of the short term analysis results. Volumes were overestimated at Graham Street/Warner and now results in improved capacity. The intersection of Bolsa Chica/Warner shows an increase of 4.5% in the morning peak and 7.6% in the evening peak for the existing condition, and 2.4% increase with project traffic in the morning and Mr. Robert Stachelski Ms. Mary Beth Broeren September 9, 2002 Page 3 6.5% in the evening. The intersection of Graham Street/Slater shows less than two (2) seconds of increase at any time. The intersection of Graham Street/Glenstone shows an increase of six (6) seconds for the existing condition and nearly nine (9) seconds for the short term condition in the morning peak hour; while the evening peak hour differential is nominal. RoadwayRoad&ay Segments Roadway segments on Graham Street were reanalyzed and compared to the previous reports. The ' results of the daily traffic analysis is provided on Table 3. As shown on Table 3,the overall change in volume to capacity (V/C)ratio has actually decreased with the new traffic counts. This is due to an overestimation of other project traffic in the 1997/2001 traffic report. Since that time, development has occurred and the resulting traffic is less than previously expected. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based on newly acquired traffic count data, it is evident that the previous studies for the Parkside Estates development included adequate estimation of other project traffic, in most instances overestimated the cumulative analysis volumes on Graham Street and at the Bolsa Chica/Warner intersection. New traffic counts are similar to 1996 traffic counts and do not report deficient levels of service based on new analysis. The addition of project traffic does not create additional impacts beyond any identified in the March 2001 traffic report. All intersections and roadway segments analyzed in this supplemental memorandum operate at acceptable levels of service within their existing configurations and no new impacts or mitigation are identified by new analysis. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Mr. Robert Stachelski Ms. Mary Beth Broeren September 9,2002 Page 4 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY Existing Condition Short Term Cumulative Condition AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM LOS ICU/HCM T LO S FROM 1996 TRAFFIC COUNTS(1997 REPORT) Bolsa Chica/Warner 0.625 B 0.624 B 0.654 B 0.645 B Graham Street/Warner 0.552 A 0.620 B 0.620 B 0.697 B Graham/Glenstone(stop) 10.53* B 10.49* B 11.62* B 11.77* B Graham/Slater(stop) 8.67* A 10.01*—]-- B 9.32* A 11.20* B FROM YEAR 2002 TRAFFIC COUNTS Bolsa Chica/Warner(signal) 0.670 B 0.700 B 0.678 B 0.710 C Graham Street/Warner(signal) 0.471 A 0.596 B 0.503 A 0.640 B Graham/Glenstone(stop) 17.03* C 10.62* B 21.32* C 11.53* B Graham/Slater(stop) 10.08* B 10.89* B 10.81* B 11.91* B ICU=Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU analysis applied to signalized intersections,results measured in volume to capacity ratio *HCM Version 4.1b applied to stop controlled intersections;results measured in seconds Mr. Robert Stachelski Ms. Mary Beth Broeren September 9, 2002 Page 5 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF CHANCE IN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION OR INTERSECTION DELAY 2002 Existing Condition 2002 Short Term Cumulative Condition Intersection AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak I PM Peak Increase/(Decrease)versus 1996 Data Increase/(Decrease)versus 1996 Data Bolsa Chica/Warner(signal) 0.045(ICU) 0.076(ICU) 0.024(ICU) 0.065(ICU) Graham Street/Warner(signal) (0.081)(ICU) (0.024)(ICU) (0.117)(ICU) (0.057)(ICU) Graham/Glenstone(stop) 6.50(Delay/Seconds) 0.013(Delay/Seconds) 9.70(Delay/Seconds) (0.24)(Delay/Seconds) Graliam/Slater(stop) 1.41 (Delay/Seconds 0.880(Delay/Seconds) 1.49(Delay/Seconds) 0.71 (Delay/Seconds) x.xxx=increased above 1996 data(1997 report) (x.xxx)=decreased below 1996 data(1997 report) Signalized intersections measured in ICU volume to capacity(V/C)ratio Stop controlled intersections measured in seconds Mr. Robert Stachelski Ms. Mary Beth Broeren September 9,2002 Page 6 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY CAPACITY 1996 VERSUS 2002 DATA Configuration Existing Condition Short Term Cumulative Intersection Location LOS D Class. Capacity ADT V/C Change ADT V/C Change FROM 1996 TRAFFIC COUNTS Graham Street: Warner/Glenstone 2C 11,700 7,200 0.615 n/a 11,095 1 0.948 j n/a Graham Street:G lenstone/S later 2C 11,700 7,200 0.615 n/a 10,710 0.915 n/a FROM 2002 TRAFFIC COUNTS Graham Street: Warner/Glenstone 2C 11,700 8,381 0.716 0.101 9,611 0.821 (.127) Graham Street:Glenstone/Slater 2C 11,700 7,295 0.623 0.008 8,115 0.693 (.222) ADT=Average daily traffic V/C=volume to capacity ratio Change x.xxx=increased above 1996 data(1997 report) Change(x.xxx)=decreased below 1996 data(1997 report) O m ;o Np m D ;:o Z = n �d r. p m 00 a 4 \� � Fn OD357/340 m o w 83/90 o �— 624/866 w a— 704/1118 42/97 � � � � 41/70 a 0 WARNER AVE 78/88 O f 379 244 984/1058 —�- V N 73117810 \ N\ 189/233 to Ln / N rn � O N L4 00 PENDLETON o KENILWORTH 196/209 v to150/33 �_ N 26/44 �— 33 8 7,200 �" `r i 15/14 \ n 2/0 \ N ,J LEGEND 10/14 w N o = TRAFFIC SIGNAL GLENSTONE XX/YY = AM/PM PEAK TRAFFIC e Z,ZZZ = DAILY TRAFFIC SLATER AVE SOURCE: OCTOBER 1996 COUNTS Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 1 1996 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 960404AA 09-09-02 JLM O mmrrn -0 D Z =D Z � i m v ? rn a m N 82 83 Fn 426/387 6 / 0) �' J 707/976 592/1047 58/103 l 28/42 I O WARNER AVE / 0 87 65 346/294 915/1159 769 8 3 —�" \ o to106/193 OD N / 2 +'�\ cowrn rn � a coo PENDLETON �v KENILWORTH N 251/300 W 233/22 17/43 co f- 2/0 w �. f-39/7 0o `n 8,381 + �-- r'" 16/6J u' o tn LEGEND 12/2 w `° °o = TRAFFIC SIGNAL I GLENSTONE 7,295 XX/YY = AM/PM PEAK TRAFFIC -s Z,ZZZ = DAILY TRAFFIC SLATER AVE SOURCE: SEPTEMBER 2002 COUNTS Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 2 2002 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 960404AA 09-09-02 JLM o m � cn v a m o J rTl� D --i 0 377/350 � 103/149 Fn o L�„ � �*—739/927 CA o 0O0 �-- 762/1149 l 1 � 42/97 � � � � 51/99 1 y O O WARNER AVE O O 379/244 f 91/126_— t 738 909 1009/1130 111/30 �' 210/974 N rn W O 1 W � 00 PENDLETON 11 ,095 KENILWORTH � 4 150/33 N J 228/267 0/4 to 33/8 4, `- t 15/14 ) 10,710 2/0 " o rn N 10/14 �''w a' v LEGEND MOO = TRAFFIC SIGNAL GLENSTONE XX/YY = AM/PM PEAK TRAFFIC SLATER AVE • Z,ZZZ = DAILY TRAFFIC Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 3 960404AA 09-09-02 JLM 1996 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC ao r, y v ;o c� m v m N �n A co 446/397 \ � \ 82/83 J -•--716/981 6n 8 592/1047 58/103 � � � �38/71 � o 0 WARNER AVE O 87/65 O 346/294 ? r` 915/1159 — N rn 743/827 _ rn o 1A 121/236� Ln, 20/32-) � L2 w v> Ln � rn PENDLETON 9,611 N KENILWORTH rn 248/22 \ 268/350 w �17/43 39/7 � rn 16/6� co \ ` 49/0--w- co 12/2 LEGEND $ M = TRAFFIC SIGNAL GLENSTONE 8,115 XX/YY = AM/PM PEAK TRAFFIC SLATER AVE •Z,ZZZ = DAILY TRAFFIC Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 4 2002 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC 960404AA 09-09-02 JLM Wo m 1996 2002 n � D n 51 ICU/LOS ICUAOS m AM 0.552 0.471 rn a D q q m PM 0.620 0.596 B B WARNER AVE 1996 2002 PENDLETON ICU/LOS ICU/LOS AM 0.625 0.670 KENILWORTH B B PM 0.624 0.700 1996 2002 B B HCM/LOS HCM/LOS 02 ADT 7,200 8 381 1996 2002 1996 2002 AM 10.53 17.03 V C 0.615 0.716 HCM/LOS HCM/LOS PM 10.49 10.62 AM 8.67 10.08 B B PM 10.01 10.89 LEGEND GLENSTONE B B ICU MEASURED IN V/C RATIO lsss 2002 HCM MEASURED IN SECONDS ADT 7,200 7,295 SLATER AVE V C 0.615 0.623 Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 5 960404AA 09-09-02 JLM 1996 VERSUS 2002 EXISTING TRAFFIC Nm 1996 2002 a -u D ICU/LOS ICU/LOS > z n m AM 0.620 0.503 D n B A m PM 0.697 0,640 B B J 7- WARNER AVE 1996 2002 PENDLETON ICU/LOS ICU/LOS AM 0,654 0.678 KENILWORTH B B PM 0.645 0.710 1996 2002 e C 1996 2002 HCMAOS HCMAOS ADT 11 095 9,611 1996 2002 AM 11..62 21.32 V C 0,948 0.821 HCMAOS HCMAOS 11.77 11.53 AM 9.32 10.81 PM B B A 8 PM 11.20 11.91 LEGEND GLENSTONE B ICU MEASURED IN V/C RATIO 19ss 2002 HCM MEASURED IN SECONDS dADT10,710 8,115 SLATER AVE 0.915 0.693 Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 6 960404AA 09-09-02 JLM 1996 VERSUS 2002 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC APPENDIX 2002 Traffic Counts ICU Summary Sheets HCM Summary Sheets Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Bolsa Chica DATE: 9/5/2002 LOCATION: City of Huntington Brach E-W STREET: Warner Ave. DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT* 02-1128-001 A NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EAS SOUND^ WESTBOUND ~ NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 3 0 1 3 0 6:00AM - 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 17 29 23 78 10 68 84 181 2 13 131 76 712 7:15 AM 19 32 25 115 13 88 85 206 1 13 142 90 329 7:30 AM 16 27 23 123 7 106 91 187 S 18 173 121 897 7:45 AM 14 25 25 113 10 109 91 200 5 16 203 130 941 8:00 AM 12 23 20 109 11 98 79 176 9 11. 189 85 8?2 8:15 AM 11 21 22 94 ii 91 72 180 8 14 177 70 771 8:30 AM 12 24 28 83 12 75 68 195 3 22 121 77 720 8:45 AM 9 17 17 74 10 60 63 177 a 17 114 66 649 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 1.1:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 110 198 183 789 84 715 633 1502 38 124 1250 715 6341 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 715 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 61 10I 93 460 41 401 346 769 20 58 707 426 3489 CONTROL: Signalized; Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREE: Bolsa Chica DATE: 9/5/2002 LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach E-W STREET. Warner Ave. DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 02-1126-001 P NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND _ WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL St' SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL.. LANES: 1 2 0 2 1 2 1 3 0 1 3 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1.30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 3 18 17 142 15 81 66 164 5 20 163 108 802 4:15 PM 6 17 17 150 15 94 68 168 5 23 168 102 833 4:30 PM 12 14 26 131 30 90 69 185 11 26 Z25 93 912 4.45 PM 14 16 29 142 24 114 78 207 8 23 248 100 1003 5:00 PM it 17 Z7 133 21 1Z1 75 214 iU 25 256 90 1000 5:15 PM 12 18 33 128 22 133 80 193 24 240 102 992 5:30 PM 9 14 21 134 26 108 61 201 7 31. 232 95 939 5:45 PM 10 16 26 114 23 103 70 186 9 27 212 91 887 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:.30 NM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT -NR SL SI- SR EL ET ER. WL WT WP, wTOTAL VOLUMES = 77 130 196 1074 176 844 567 1518 62 199 1744 781 1368 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 46 65 110 537 93 476 294 815 32 103 976 387 3934 CONTROL: Signalized; Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Graham St. DATE: 9/4/2002 LOCATION City of Huntington Bead, E-W STREET: Warner Ave. DAY: WEDNESDAY PROIECT4 02-1108-001 A NORTHBOUND SOUTHSOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR. TOTAL LANES: 1 1 1 1 .5 .5 1 2.5 .5 1 2.5 `. _ 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 43 27 5 11 15 12 6 151 25 1 132 12 440 6:45 AM 6j 32 12 7 27 9 9 199 35 5 112 24 574 7:00 AM 58 30 8 7 21 10 15 209 33 4 128 25 5.48 7:15 AM 40 29 7 8 16 16 28 229 32 4 132 27 56 7:30 AM 55 27 12 13 23 23 20 220 2.9 7 ISO 21 600 7:45 AM 48 33 15 9 2-'9 25 22 236 24 7 168 11) G1-" 8:00 AM 35 25 8 12 24 14 17 230 21 10 142 15 5.`.i3 8:15 AM 32 22 7 6 21 8 12 215 19 5 128 11 486 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10'.15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11.00 AM 11:15 AM ' 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NIT NR SL ST SR EL LT ER WL IAIT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 374 225 74 73 176 117 129 1689 218 43 1092 154 4364 AM Pease Hr Begins at: 715 AM PEAK VOLUMES — 178 114 42 42 92 78 87 915 106 28 592 82 2356 CONTROL: Signalized Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Graham St. DATE: 914/2002 LOCATION: City of Huntingtun Sea,-h E-W STREET: Warner Ave. DAY' WEDNESDAY PK.U3EC-7# 02-1108-003 P NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES. 1 1 1 1 .5 .5 1 2.5 -S, 1 2.5 5 - 1:00 PM _-_�- -- ------_:. 1.15 PM 1:30 PM 11.45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4;00 PM 36 27 6 18 22 16 19 236 34 5 68 30 51'1 4:15 PM 47 24 3 21 27 19 19 256 :38 7 75 31 567 4:30 PM 50 33 11 26 33 24 21 253 46 9 7t 32 609 4:45 PM 58 38 1 14 25 24 14 304 51 5 280 22 836 5:00 PM 50 30 11 21 44 28 19 289 43 8 259 17 811? 5:15 PM 50 31 7 26 39 18 16 289 557 16 272 25 846 5:30 PM 41 31 7 25 37 21 16 277 42 13 236 19 765 5:45 PM 32 28 6 17 30 22 12 25.1 40 11 245 Is 712 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT — NR SL 5T SR EL ET ER! WL WT�_ WP. TOTAL VOLUMES = 364 242 52 168 257 172 136 21.55 351 74 1506 194 5671. PM Peak. Hr Begins at: 445 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 199 130 26 86 145 91 65 1159 193 42 1047 87 3 66 CONTROL. Signalized Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-5 STREET: Graham St. DATE: 9/4/2002 LOCATION: City of Huntington Bead-, E-W STREET: Gienstone Ave. DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 02-11.08-002 A NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EAST80UND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 6:00 AM 6;15 AM 6:30 AM 0 50 2 7 11 1 4 0 2 0 1 8 86 6:45 AM 0 43 5 13 22 0 2 0 0 3 0 13 101 7:00 AM 0 58 3 38 48 0 5 0 3 3 0 1.6 174 7:15 AM 1 59 36 108 39 18 3 17 2 8 1 58 350 7:30 AM 1 57 40 74 45 26 7 32 4 21 1 105 413 7:45 AM 1 84 2 8 49 2 1 0 3 7 0 54 211 8:00 AM 3 73 4 2 49 0 1 0 1 3 0 10 1,46 8:15 AM 0 69 6 2 42 2 4 0 2 2 0 8 137 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 6 493 98 257. 305 49 27 49 17 47 3 272 1618 AM Peak Hr Begins at; 700 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 3 258 81 228 181 46 16 49 12 39 2 233 1!•;S CANTROI.: 4-Way Stop S Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Graham St. DATE: 9/4/2002 LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach E-W STREET: Glenstone Ave. DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 02-1108-002 p NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WE1,9TBOt1ND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL £T ER. WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1:00 PM 1:15 Phi 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 7,:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 1 69 1 9 67 1 1 C 0 3 0 11 i63 4:15 PM 1 59 3 6 73 2 0 1 1 0 1 C 15 3 4:30 PM 6 65 1 6 67 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 155 4:45 PM 2 71 4 8 57 2 0 0 3 1 0 4 152 5:00 PM 2 77 4 8 72 7 0 0 0 2 0 5 177 5:15 PM 1 91 1 11 78 5 3 0 0 1 0 6 197 5:30 PM 1 88 2 7 90 3 1 0 2 1 0 6 201 5:45 PM 2 88 2 5 76 4 2 0 0 3 0 5 187 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:4 5 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL r ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 16 608 18 60 580 26 10 1 6 11 1 48 1-385 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 6 344 9 31 316 19 6 0 2 7 0 22 762 CONTROL: 4-Way Stop 1CJ Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Graham St. DATE: 9/4/2002 LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach E-W STREET: Slater Ave. DAY: WEDNESDAY PR.OJECT9 02-1108-003 A NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NIL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 0 0 1 1 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 33 9 12 0 2 30 86 6.45 AM 22 12 21 4 1 40 lilt) 7:00 AM 40 ' 50 4 8 37 146 7:tS AM 47 13 50 13 1 61 185 7:30 AM 47 28 74 14 6 6 <'7. 7:45 AM 29 23 58 4 64 85 8:00 AM 34 6 43 11 6 63 163 8,15 AM 33 6 35 12 12 57 1 - 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 285 104 343 65 0 0 0 0 40 0 415 1252 AM Peak Hr Beglns at: 715 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 157 70 225 45 0 0 0 0 17 0 251 765 CONTROL: 3-Way Stop {North, South & East} Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N S STREET: Graham St. DATE: 9/4/2002 LOCATION: City of Huntington SeaCE: E-W STR.EFT: Slater Ave. DAY: WEDNESDAY PR03F_(-T* 02-1.1.08-003 P NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT %NR TOTAL LANES: 1 a 0 1 ?- 1:06 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM. 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 22 S 57 29 15 50 178 4:15 PM 17 9 50 29 8 41 154 4:30 PM 12 8 56 20 11 62 169 4;4S PM 21 8 53 20 14 61 177 5:00 PM 12 4 47 29 14 75 .1.81 5:15 PM 21 10 58 36 13 74 21-2 5:30 PM 21 6 57 36 9 71 200 5:45 PM 15 4 53 37 7 80 196 6.00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER bWL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 141 54 43.1 236 0 0 0 0 91 0 51.4 1467 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 69 24 215 138 0 0 0 0 43 0 300 789 CONTROL: 3-Way Stop (North, South &East) Average Daily Traffic Volumns Prepared by: Southland Car Counters Volurnes for: Wednesday, September 04, 2CCIty- Huntington Beach Project. *: 02-.11.07-002 Location: Graham St. &btwn. Glenstone&Slater Client Ref#: 960404 gL� W8 PM peffiri NB 5 12:00-12:15 52 51 12:15.12;30 40 47 U-30.121:45 3 4 12:30-12.45 80 42 12:4S.tJ30 3 9 4 15 24 12:45-1:00 63 235 55 195 4-20 I.00-1!15 1 3 1:00-1!I'S 38 40 2 1:15-1:30 42. 40 5 130.1:45 50 46 1;45.2:00 1 5 2 12 17 1:45-2*.00 47 w 177 46 1721 249 2:00-2:15 a 1 2:00-2:15 57 so 2:15-2.30 0 2 2:15-2:30 59 56 7, 220-ZAS 5- 0 63 2:45 4 T 10 2!45-1:00 59 238 67 2.10 -169 3:00-3:!5 0 2 3:00-3!15 55 66 3:15.3:30 2 1 3:15-3:30 58 6n 1:30 '30-3-45 67 68 , 0 13 2 6 2 .5 11 145-4:00 72 252 63 266 5*1 1 4:00.1:15 f) 2 4:00-4*.15 56 fi5 4-15.4:3n 3 0 4!15-4!30 70 60 ,I-30-4:45 a 1 4:30.4:45 77 67 4-45-5:00 6 17 0 3 20 4'45-5,00 73 276 75 267 541z 5!00-5:15 95 79 5.15-5:30 93 1 14 4 ".8 4 5,30.5!45 97 8.1 5,45.f);00 28 80 3 12 92 5:45-6:00 M4 389 100 3741 763 6:00.6:t5 28 3.4 6M-6*.15 79 914 6.13-5 30 42 t5 6:15-6:30 62 92 6:110-6:45 47 10 6,30-6,45 71 84 6:454M 5.3 170 19 58 228 6:45-7:00 73 265 f)f 366 7:00.'7:15 65 30 7:00.7:15 57 70 7:t5-7:30 71 57 7:15-7:'.10 53 66 7:30.T45 110 71 7:?0-7:45 45 61 7.45-3:00 82 328 71 229 557 7:45-8:00 37 187 50 ?27 3:00.8:15 66 51 8;00-8;15 36 4.*' 8:15-8:30 79 48 8;IS-8:30 45 37 8*.30-8:45 63 so 8:30-8:45 26 35 8:45.9:00 64 272 46 195 467 8 �83 *45-9:00 28 135 3! 146 9-00-9Z 61 42 9:00-9:15 22 25 9z;5-9;30 50 48 9:15-9:30 17 1 26 9.,30-9:-45 57 38 9:30-9:45 18 21 9!45-1f):00 47 7,15 35 163 y 378 9:45-10.00 i 8 85 11 13 10:00-10-15 43 -'9 Mon-10:15 20 119 10A5-I0'.30 52 41 10.15-1,0!30 L4 2 s M.30-110-49 5n 38 In;30-10:45 i6 181 W-5-t 1.00 44 189 29 137 326 10:45-11:00 12 62 11 72 It'00-LI:15 55 40 11.00-11;15 6 10 11 so 5-1-1:30 3 5 11:30.11:45 49 40 m30.11:45 5 2 11:45-12:00 111 206 .39 179 395 no 2 17 i 0 4 Total Vol. ISO 1012 0 0 251.5 2:339 -7-4.12 0 Daft Totals 3841 3454 0 Average Daily Traffic Volumns Prepared by: Southland Car Counters Volumes for: Wednesday, September 04, 2CCity: Huntington Beach Project 02-1107-t-MI Location: Graham St. &btwn. Warner&Glenstone Client Ref : 960404 aM Pgwd NB �EB �N -- a�riod NB �S� R WB -- _= 12:00-12:15 3 5 12.00-12:15 44 48 12:15.1230 0 3 12:15-12:30 71 56 l�':301.2:45 1 5 12:30-12:45 8.3 48 iZ:45•]:01i 4 8 6 19 27 12:45-1.00 64 262 I., '1.2 474 1:00-1:15 2 2 I:OC 1:15 44 '16 1 2 i:].5-1.:30 57 -i6 1;3U-1.:45 l 4 1;30.1:45 46 47 1:45.2;00 0 , 5 4 .12 17 1:45-Z:00 52 199 5`i..,..196 --- - 'O7 2:00.2:15 2 1 2:00-2:15 64 ;7 2:15 2:30 4 3 2:15-2:30 61 18 2:30.2:45 1 0 2:30-2:45 65 53 ':45-3:00 0 7 1 5 12 2:45.3:00 63 253 79 247 3A-3:15 1 I ?:00-3:15 70 1:.r 3:15 3:70 2 2 3:15-J:30 72 34 3:30-3:45 2 0 3 30-3:45 79 77,. 3 45 4:00 1 6 1 4 .- 10 145-4:00 74 _295 100 322 _ � 617 4:00-4.1ti l 0 4:00-4:15 75 98 4:1.5.4:30 2 1 4:15.4:30 79 "8 4:30-4:45 8 0 4:30•4.45 84 75 4:45-5:eo 1.0 20 0 1 _ 21 4,45-5:00 82 320 81 332 5:00-5,15 13 2 5.00-5:15 82 8$ 5:1.5-3:30 8 3 5:is-5:30 48 90 5''.0•5:45 22 3 5:30-5:45 101 74 5:45-6:00 33 78 3 11 87 5:45-6:00 98 379 78, 330 - w 6:00.6:15 38 11 6:00-6:15 97 76 6:15.6;30 40 .13 61.5.6:30 74 H 7 o'30-6:45 51. 15 6:30-6:45 85 8.4 M5-7 70 47 176 23 62 238 6:45.7:00 88 344 82..._329 673�... 7:00-7:15 71 39 7:00-7:15 67 K3 7:15.7:30 86 111 7 15-7 30 55 Q 1 7:30-7:45 167 210 7.30-7.45 59 72 7:45-8:00 1i11 515 111 471 986 7:45-8:00 44 225` 53 289 ''•1"� 3:00-8:15 118 54 8;00-8:15 31 6J. 8:1.5.8:10 99 50 8:15-8:30 59 44 8:30.8:41 80 54 8:30-8:45 34 .38 B:45-9:00 79 376 43 201 577 8745-9100 29 153 38 _ 181. _._ .._• 334_ 9:00-9:1.5 65 43 9:00-9:15 27 32 9'15 9:30 53 46 9:15-9:30 29 24 9:30-1)'45 (34 43 9:30.9:45 29 19 -;-45-t0:0f) 57 239 42 174 413 9c45-1.0:i1O 21 106 18 `.d`.'. 1o:uo-lo:ls 42 2�J 10:Go-1o:15 zn 19 10:30 51 39 10:1"-10.30 1(; 20 ).0:30.10:45 58 42 10:30.10.45 16 7,0 10:45-11:00 49 200 34 144 _ 344 10:45-11:00 13 65 1.5 _4 48 37 11:00.11:15 75 11:15-11.30 60 52 11:15-11:30 5 7 11.30-1145 54 48 11.30-11:45 11,45-12.00 5'3 215 46 183 398 !1:45-12.00 -- - 20 10 Total Vol. --;843 1287 0 U 31J0 2621 2GJi) 0 Daily Totals 4464 391,7 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) Intersection: Bolsa Chica/Wamer Date: (10/24/96) Condition: Existing Condition Lane Capacity: 1700 Number AM PEAK PM PEAK Of Lane Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NL 1 1700 45 0.026 - 32 0.019 - NT 2 3400 210 0.062 * 147 0.043 * NR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 SL 2 3400 333 0.098 * 511 0.150 * ST 1 1700 28 0.016 - 145 0.085 - SR 2 3400 257 0.076 440 0.129 EL 1 1700 379 0.223 * 244 0.144 ET 3 5100 745 0.146 - 811 0.159 - ER 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 WL 1 1700 42 0.025 - 97 0.057 - WT 3 5100 981 0.192 * 1206 0.236 WR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 N+S Critical Move 0.160 0.194 E+W Critical Move 0.415 0.380 Lost Time 0.050 0.050 NB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 SB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 EB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 WB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 ICU 0.625 0.624 LOS B B rJ icustand INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) Intersection: Bolsa Chica/Wamer Date: Sept 5 2002 Condition: Existing Condition Lane Capacity: 1700 Number AM PEAK PM PEAK of Lane Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NL 1 1700 61 0.036 - 46 0.027 - NT 2 3400 200 0.059 * 175 0.051 * NR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 SL 2 3400 460 0.135 * 537 0.158 * ST 1 1700 41 0.024 - 93 0.055 - SR 2 3400 401 0.118 476 0.140 EL 1 1700 346 0.204 * 294 0.173 ET 3 5100 789 0.155 - 847 0.166 - ER 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 WL 1 1700 58 0.034 - 103 0.061 - WT 3 5100 1133 0.222 * 1363 0.267 WR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 N+S Critical Move 0.194 0.209 E+W Critical Move 0.426 0.440 Lost Time 0.050 0.050 NB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 SIB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 EB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 WB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 ICU 0.670 0.700 LOS B B I2,- icustand INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) Intersection: Balsa Chica/Wamer Date: 1997 Report Condition: Cumulative Lane Capacity: 1700 Number AM PEAK PM PEAK Of Lane Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NL 1 1700 45 0.026 - 32 0.019 - NT 2 3400 210 0.062 * 147 0.043 * NR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 SL 2 3400 341 0.100 * 535 0.157 * ST 1 1700 28 0.016 - 145 0.085 - SR 2 3400 257 0.076 440 0.129 EL 1 1700 379 0.223 * 244 0.144 ET 3 5100 794 0.156 - 939 0.184 - ER 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 WL 1 1700 42 0.025 - 97 0.057 - WT 3 5100 1116 0.219 * 1277 0.250 WR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 N+S Critical Move 0.162 0.201 E+W Critical Move 0.442 0.394 Lost Time 0.050 0.050 NB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 SB Right Turn Camp. 0.000 0.000 EB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 WB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 ICU 0.654 0.645 LOS B B icustand INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) Intersection: Bolsa Chica/Wamer Date: 2002 Traffic Counts Condition: Existing Plus Project Lane Capacity: 1700 Number AM PEAK PM PEAK of Lane Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NL 1 1700 61 0.036 - 46 0.027 - NT 2 3400 200 0.059 * 175 0.051 * NR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 SL 2 3400 468 0.138 * 561 0.165 * ST 1 1700 41 0.024 - 93 0.055 - SR 2 3400 401 0.118 476 0.140 EL 1 1700 346 0.204 * 294 0.173 ET 3 5100 793 0.155 - 859 0.168 - ER 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 WL 1 1700 58 0.034 - 103 0.061 - WT 3 5100 1162 0.228 * 1378 0.270 WR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 N+S Critical Move 0.196 0.216 E+W Critical Move 0.431 0.443 Lost Time 0.050 0.050 NB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 SB Right Tum Comp. 0.000 0.000 EB Right Tum Comp. 0.000 0.000 WB Right Tum Comp. 0.000 0.000 ICU 0.678 0.710 LOS B C icustand INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) Intersection: Graham Street/Warner Date: 10/24/96 Condition: Existing Condition Lane Capacity: 1700 Number AM PEAK PM PEAK of Lane Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NL 1 1700 293 0.172 * 208 0.122 NT 1 1700 170 0.100 - 94 0.055 - NR 1 1700 52 0.031 52 0.031 SL 1 1700 47 0.028 - 83 0.049 - ST 1 1700 129 0.076 * 260 0.153 SR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 EL 1 1700 78 0.046 - 88 0.052 - ET 3 5100 1173 0.230 * 1291 0.253 * ER 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 WL 1 1700 41 0.024 * 70 0.041 * WT 3 5100 787 0.154 - 1208 0.237 - WR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 N+S Critical Move 0.248 0.275 E+W Critical Move 0.254 0.294 Lost Time 0.050 0.050 NB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 SB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 EB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 WB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 ICU 0.552 0.620 LOS A B (5 icustand INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) Intersection: Graham St/Wamer Date: 8/29/02 Condition: Existing Condition Lane Capacity: 1700 Number AM PEAK PM PEAK of Lane Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NL 1 1700 178 0.105 * 199 0.117 NT 1 1700 114 0.067 - 130 0.076 - NR 1 1700 42 0.025 26 0.015 SL 1 1700 42 0.025 - 86 0.051 - ST 1 1700 170 0.100 * 236 0.139 SR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 EL 1 1700 87 0.051 - 65 0.038 - ET 3 5100 1021 0.200 * 1352 0.265 * ER 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 WL 1 1700 28 0.016 * 42 0.025 * WT 3 5100 674 0.132 - 1130 0.222 - WR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 N+S Critical Move 0.205 0.256 E+W Critical Move 0.217 0.290 Lost Time 0.050 0.050 NB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 SB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 EB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 WB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 ICU 0.471 0.596 LOS A A icustand INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) Intersection: Graham Street/Wamer Date: 1997 Report Condition: Cumulative Lane Capacity: 1700 Number AM PEAK PM PEAK of Lane Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NL 1 1700 342 0.201 * 234 0.138 NT 1 1700 186 0.109 - 108 0.064 - NR 1 1700 75 0.044 64 0.038 SL 1 1700 94 0.055 - 108 0.064 - ST 1 1700 170 0.100 * 293 0.172 SR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 EL 1 1700 91 0.054 - 126 0.074 - ET 3 5100 1219 0.239 * 1424 0.279 ER 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 WL 1 1700 51 0.030 * 99 0.058 WT 3 5100 865 0.170 - 1298 0.255 - WR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 N+S Critical Move 0.301 0.310 E+W Critical Move 0.269 0.337 Lost Time 0.050 0.050 NB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 SB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 EB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 14VB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 ICU 0.620 0.697 LOS B B I -7 icustand INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) Intersection: Graham St/Wamer Date: 8/29/02 Condition: Existing+Project Lane Capacity: 1700 Number AM PEAK PM PEAK of Lane Movementl Lanes Capacity Volume V/C Volume V/C NL 1 1700 212 0.125 * 217 0.128 NT 1 1700 125 0.074 - 136 0.080 - NR 1 1700 65 0.038 38 0.022 SL 1 1700 42 0.025 - 86 0.051 - ST 1 1700 175 0.103 * 250 0.147 SR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 EL 1 1700 87 0.051 - 65 0.038 - ET 3 5100 1036 0.203 * 1395 0.274 * ER 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 WL 1 1700 38 0.022 * 71 0.042 * WT 3 5100 674 0.132 - 1130 0.222 - WR 0 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 N+S Critical Move 0.228 0.275 E+W Critical Move 0.225 0.315 Lost Time 0.050 0.050 NB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 SB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 EB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 WB Right Turn Comp. 0.000 0.000 ICU 0.503 0.640 LOS A B lg icustand -artshorn Us, Incorporated Phone: Fax: -Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS nalyst: Hartshorn gency/Co. : Darnell Date Performed: 9/9/2002 Analysis Time Period: AM ntersection: Graham/Glenstone -urisdiction: Huntington Beach Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 1997 .roject ID: 960404 Graham Street .ast/West Street: Glenstone Ave North/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound 1 I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I I I I I I volume 115 2 10 133 0 150 13 254 40 1140 140 7 s Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 :onfiguration LTR LTR LTR LTR ?HF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 27 183 297 287 Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 40. Lanes 1 1 1 1 ,)pposing-Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting-lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 ;Flow Rates: Total in Lane 27 183 297 287 Left-Turn 15 33 3 140 Right-Turn 10 150 40 7 Prop. Left-Turns 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.5 Prop. Right-Turns 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Adjustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0. 1 -0.5 -0.1 0.1 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 Flow rate 27 183 297 287 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 g3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 t 1, tlnal value ,, final value 0.04 0.25 0.39 0.39 Move-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.5 2.9 2.8 2.9 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 27 183 297 287 service Time 3.5 2.9 2.8 2.9 tilization, x 0.04 0.25 0.39 0.39 ep. headway, hd 5.54 4.91 4.76 4.92 Capacity 277 433 547 537 relay 8.78 9.54 10.79 11.06 OS A A B B pproach: Delay 8.78 9.54 10.79 11.06 LOS A A B B ntersection Delay 10.53 Intersection LOS B !- ..artshorn Js, Incorporated Phone: Fax: -Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS aalyst: Hartshorn jency/Co. : Darnell Date Performed: 9/9/2002 Analysis Time Period: PM atersection: Graham/Glenstone urisdiction: Huntington Beach Units: U. S. Customary analysis Year: 1997 roject ID: 960404 Graham Street .-ast/West Street: Glenstone Ave North/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound 1 Westbound I Northbound I Southbound 1 I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R i I I I I 1 olume 114 0 14 18 4 33 113 236 19 162 317 14 1 Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 :onfiguration LTR LTR LTR LTR 'HF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 28 45 268 393 % Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 (o. Lanes 1 1 1 1 ipposing-Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting-lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 )uration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 -`Flow Rates: Total in Lane 28 45 268 393 Left-Turn 14 8 13 62 Right-Turn 14 33 19 14 ?rop. Left-Turns 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 ?rop. Right-Turns 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 adjustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.2 -0. 4 -0.0 0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 28 45 268 393 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 2� . '., anal val.uc .+.�.+ final value 0.04 0.06 0.33 0.48 .gyve-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 service Time 3.3 3.0 2.5 2.4 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbour_d L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 ?low Rate 28 45 268 393 service Time 3.3 3.0 2.5 2.4 :ili.zation, x 0.04 0.06 0.33 0.48 .p. headway, hd 5.25 5.02 4,48 4.40 rapacity 278 295 518 643 )elay 8.48 8.35 9.72 11.40 1S A A A B _>proach: Delay 8.48 8.35 9.72 11.40 LOS A A A B itersection Delay 10.49 Intersection LOS B 2-z dartshorn Us, Incorporated Phone: Fax: Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS snalyst: Hartshorn kgency/Co. : Darnell Date Performed: 9/9/2002 zmalysis Time Period: AM Cntersection: Graham/Glenstone jurisdiction: Huntington Beach Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2002 2roject ID: 960404 Graham Street , ast/West Street: Glenstone Ave North/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics I Eastbound 1 Westbound I Northbound 1 Southbound I I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R 1 i I I I I Volume 116 49 12 139 2 233 13 258 81 1228 181 46 1 Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 77 274 342 455 % Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Opposing-Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting-lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 -Flow Rates: Total in Lane 77 274 342 455 Left-Turn 16 39 3 228 Right-Turn 12 233 81 46 Prop. Left-Turns 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 Prop. Right-Turns 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Adjustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.1 -0.5 -0.1 0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 77 274 342 455 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Z2 ^.Q, LJ.11a.L vatuc final value 0.15 0.44 0.54 0.72 .love-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 4.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Blow Rate 77 274 342 455 Service Time 4.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 rtilization, x 0.15 0.44 0.54 0.72 )ep. headway, hd 6.81 5.84 5. 68 5.66 Capacity 327 524 592 616 Delay 10.97 13.44 15.16 21.62 ,OS B B C C spproach: Delay 10.97 13.44 15.16 21.62 LOS B B C C :ntersection Delay 17.03 Intersection LOS C 24 .artshorn is, Incorporated ?hone: Fax: -Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS nalyst: Hartshorn gency/Co. : Darnell Date Performed: 9/9/2002 Analysis Time Period: PM ntersection: Graham/Glenstone urisdiction: Huntington Beach Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2002 roject ID: 960404 Graham Street ast/West Street: Glenstone Ave North/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound 1 I L T R 1 L T R I L T R I L T R 1 I I I i I 'olume 16 0 2 17 0 22 16 344 9 131 316 19 I Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 'onfiguration LTR LTR LTR LTR UHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 8 29 359 366 % .Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 To. Lanes 1 1 1 1 )pposing-Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting-lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 °.Flow Rates: Total in Lane 8 29 359 366 Left-Turn 6 7 6 31 Right-Turn 2 22 9 19 Prop. Left-Turns 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 Prop. Right-Turns 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Adjustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.0 -0. 4 -0.0 -0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 Flow rate 8 29 359 366 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 25 i, J-A- v final value 0.01 0.04 0.44 0.44 move-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.5 3.1 2.4 2.4 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 8 29 359 366 Service Time 3.5 3.1 2.4 2.4 'tilization, x 0.01 0.04 0.44 0.44 lep. headway, hd 5.53 5.08 4.37 4.36 Capacity 258 279 609 616 Delay 8.60 8.30 10.69 10.78 ,OS A A B B Lpproach: Delay 8.60 8.30 10.69 10.78 LOS A A B B :ntersection Delay 10.62 Intersection LOS B 2G _rtshorn s, Incorporated hone: Fax: Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS alyst: Hartshorn ency/Co. : Darnell ate Performed: 9/9/2002 nalysis Time Period: AM tersection: Graham/Glenstone risdiction: Huntington Beach nits: U. S. Customary malysis Year: 1997 Cumulative oject ID: 960404 Graham Street st/West Street: Glenstone Ave forth/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I I I I I I lume 115 2 10 133 0 150 13 291 40 1140 197 7 I Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 mfiguration LTR LTR LTR LTR IF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 27 183 334 344 Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 ). Lanes 1 1 1 1 )posing-Lanes 1 1 1 1 conflicting-lanes 1 1 1 1 ?ometry group 1 1 1 1 tration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 7low Rates: Total in Lane 27 183 334 344 Left-Turn 15 33 3 140 Right-Turn 10 150 40 7 :op. Left-Turns 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.4 :op. Right-Turns 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 ijustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0. 6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed -0.1 -0.5 -0. 1 0. 1 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 27 183 334 344 'd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Z� - ,rfinal value 0.04 0.26 0.45 0.48 Dve-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.8 3.2 2.9 3.0 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 rlow 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 0S A A B B pproach: Delay 9.09 9.98 11.85 12.47 LOS A A B B ntersection Delay 11.62 Intersection LOS B 21 rJ1.Q4 V V V. V11A1y 11Q1.1.4=%A 131 l&W rartshorn Us, Incorporated Phone: Fax: ,-Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS analyst: Hartshorn ,gency/Co. : Darnell Date Performed: 9/9/2002 Analysis Time Period: PM :ntersection: Graham/Glenstone -urisdiction: Huntington Beach Units: U. S. Customary 'lalysis Year: 1997 Cumulative 'roject ID: 960404 Graham Street mast/West Street: Glenstone Ave North/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics ( Eastbound 1 Westbound ► Northbound I Southbound 1 I L T R I L T R i L T R I L T R 1 I I I I i olume 114 0 14 IS 4 33 113 314 19 162 362 14 1 ,d Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 . :onfiguration LTR LTR LTR LTR 'HF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 28 45 346 438 g Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 o. Lanes 1 1 1 1 -pposing-Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting-lanes 1 1 1 1 ^•eometry group 1 1 1 1 juration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 ':;:'low Rates: Total in Lane 28 45 346 438 Left-Turn 14 8 13 62 Right-Turn 14 33 19 14 'rop. Left-Turns 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 'rop. Right-Turns 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehi.cle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 .djustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0. 6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 .adj, computed -0.2 -0.4 -0.0 0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 28 45 346 438 ' .d, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 z1 11lla-L valuc ., .... final value 0.04 0.07 0.44 0.55 eve-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ervice Time 3.5 3.3 2.6 2.5 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 'low Rate 28 45 346 438 ervice Time 3.5 3.3 2. 6 2.5 .ilization, x 0.04 0.07 0.44 0.55 :p. headway, hd 5.55 5.31 4.56 4.50 :apacity 278 295 596 688 )elay 8.80 8.68 11.08 12.82 )S A A B B _)proach: Delay 8.80 8. 68 11.08 12.82 LOS A A B B ttersection Delay 11.77 Intersection LOS B 3V ..artshorn Us, Incorporated Phone: Fax: -Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS nalyst: Hartshorn gency/Co. : Darnell Date Performed: 9/9/2002 .Analysis Time Period: AM ntersection: Graham/Glenstone urisdiction: Huntington Beach Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 1997 Cumulative IMPROV ,roject ID: 960404 Graham Street .ast/West Street: Glenstone Ave North/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics { Eastbound J Westbound { Northbound I Southbound { I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R { I I I I I olume 115 2 10 133 0 150 13 291 40 1140 197 7 { Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 .onfiguration LTR LTR L TR L TR >HF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 27 183 3 331 140 204 % Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 4o. Lanes 1 1 2 2 )pposing-Lanes 1 1 2 2 Conflicting-lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry group 2 2 5 5 )uration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 ^low Rates: Total in Lane 27 183 3 331 140 204 Left-Turn 15 33 3 0 140 0 Right-Turn 10 150 0 40 0 7 ' Prop. Left-Turns 0.6 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Drop. Right-Turns 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 2 2 5 5 .kdjustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0. 6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.1 -0.5 0.2 -0.1 0.2 -0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 27 183 3 331 140 204 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 final value 0.04 0.26 0.00 0.50 0.22 0.31 ..)ve-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.3 Service Time 3.8 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.4 3.1 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 e'iow Rate 27 183 3 331 140 204 Service Time 3.8 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.4 3.1 :ilization, x 0.04 0.26 0.00 0.50 0.22 0.31 ap. headway, hd 5.79 5. 12 5.69 5.42 5.66 5.44 capacity 277 433 253 581 390 454 Delay 9.05 9.92 8.42 13.37 9.95 10.54 )S A A A B A B ?proach: Delay 9.05 9.92 13.32 10.30 LOS A A B B atersection Delay 11.32 Intersection LOS B -artshorn Us, Incorporated Phone: Fax: -Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS malyst: Hartshorn .gency/Co. : Darnell Date Performed: 9/9/2002 Analysis Time Period: PM ntersection: Graham/Glenstone urisdiction: Huntington Beach Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 1997 Cumulative IMPROV Iroject ID: 960404 Graham Street mast/West Street: Glenstone Ave North/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics 1 Eastbound 1 Westbound ) Northbound ) Southbound 1 I L T R ) L T R I L T R I L T R 1 I I I I I volume 114 0 14 18 4 33 113 314 19 162 362 14 1 s Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 :onfiguration LTR LTR L TR L TR ?HF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 28 45 13 333 62 376 % Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 do. Lanes 1 1 2 2 )pposing-Lanes 1 1 2 2 Conflicting-lanes 2 2 1 1 r.Teometry group 2 2 5 5 duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 .Flow Rates: Total in Lane 28 45 13 333 62 376 Left-Turn 14 8 13 0 62 0 Right-Turn 14 33 0 19 0 14 Prop. Left-Turns 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.5 0.7 0.0 0. 1 0.0 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 2 2 5 5 Adjustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.2 -0.4 0.2 -0.0 0.2 -0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 28 45 13 333 62 376 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 �3 final value 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.47 0.09 0.52 .)ve-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.3 Service Time 3.5 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.7 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 :iow Rate 28 45 13 333 62 376 Service Time 3.5 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.7 :ilization, x 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.47 0.09 0.52 sp. headway, hd 5.54 5.30 5.29 5.06 5.20 4.98 rapacity 278 295 263 583 312 626 Delay 8.79 8.68 8.09 12.12 8.41 12.94 ')S A A A B A B ?proach: Delay 8.79 8.68 11.96 12.30 LOS A A B B ztersection Delay 11.86 Intersection LOS B HCS2000 : Unsignalized Intersections Release 4 . 1b 'iartshorn Js, Incorporated ?hone: Fax: E-Mail . ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL (AWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst : Hartshorn agency/Co. : Darnell -)ate Performed: 9/9/2002 Analysis Time Period: AM Intersection: Graham/Glenstone furisdiction: Huntington Beach Units : U. S. Customary :.Xnalysis Year: 2002+Project ')roject ID: 960404 Graham Street East/West Street : Glenstone Ave North/South Street : Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume 16 49 12 39 2 248 3 278 81 243 212 46 Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR DI-IF 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1 . 00 'low Rate 77 289 362 501 Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 ipposing-Lanes 1 1 1 1 ,'onflicting-lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 -:'!uration, T 0 . 25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 'low Rates : Total in Lane 77 289 362 501 Left-Turn 16 39 3 243 Right-Turn 12 248 81 46 rop. Left-Turns 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 5 crop. Right-Turns 0 . 2 0 . 9 0 . 2 0 . 1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 .eometry Group 1 1 1 1 .djustments Table 10-40 : 3� hLT-adj 0 . 2 U .2 U .2 U . 2 hRT--adj -0 . 6 -0 . 6 -0 . 6 -0 . 6 hHV-adj 1 . 7 1. 7 1 . 7 1 . 7 I-adj , computed -0 . 1 -0 . 5 -0 . 1 0 . 0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 Flow rate 77 289 362 501 Ld, initial value 3 . 20 3 . 20 3 . 20 3 .20 3 . 20 3 . 20 3 . 20 3 . 20 initial 0 . 07 0 . 26 0 .32 0 .45 nd, final value 7 . 21 6 . 11 5 . 93 5 . 85 x, final value 0 . 15 0 .49 0 . 60 0 . 81 ove-up time, m 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 _ervice Time 5 . 2 4 . 1 3 . 9 3 . 9 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 glow Rate 77 289 362 501 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 Telay 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 Hartshorn Us, Incorporated Phone: Fax: E-Mail. ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: Hartshorn Agency/Co. : Darnell Date Performed: 9/9/2002 Analysis Time Period: PM Intersection: Graham/Glenstone Jurisdiction: Huntington Beach Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2002+project Project ID: 960404 Graham Street . East/West Street: Glenstone Ave North/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound 1 Westbound 1 Northbound I Southbound I { L T R i L T R { L T R I L T R { I 1 I I i lolume 16 0 2 17 0 22 16 402 9 131 340 19 1 16 Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 :onfiguration LTR LTR LTR LTR ?HF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 8 29 417 390 % Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 4o. Lanes 1 1 1 1 )pposing-Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting-lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 )uration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 :'low Rates: Total in Lane 8 29 417 390 Left-Turn 6 7 6 31 Right-Turn 2 22 9 19 "rop. Left-Turns 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 Irop. Right-Turns 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 _)rop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 .djustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 Ladj, computed -0.0 -0.4 -0.0 -0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 8 29 417 390 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 31 d, rinal value Z). r c final. value 0.01 0.04 0.51 0.48 move-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.7 3.3 2.4 2.4 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 8 29 417 390 service Time 3.7 3.3 2.4 2.4 tilization, x 0.01 0.04 0.51 0.48 ep. headway, hd 5.72 5.26 4.40 4.43 Capacity 258 279 667 640 nelay 8.79 8.49 11.89 11.43 IOS A A B B ..pproach: Delay 8.79 8.49 11.89 11.43 LOS A A B B :ntersection Delay 11.53 Intersection LOS B Jartshorn Us, Incorporated Phone: Fax: '-Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC} ANALYSIS knalyst: Hartshorn kgency/Co. : Darnell Date Performed: 9/9/2002 Analysis Time Period: AM Intersection: Graham/Glenstone Turisdiction: Huntington Beach Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2002+project + IMPROV ?roject ID: 960404 Graham Street cast/West Street: Glenstone Ave North/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics J Eastbound { Westbound i Northbound I Southbound { J L T R I L T R ( L T R ► L T R J I I I I I Tolume 116 49 12 139 2 233 13 278 81 1228 227 46 { Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 :onfiguration LTR LTR L TR L TR ?HF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 77 274 3 359 228 273 Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jo. Lanes 1 1 2 2 )pposing-Lanes 1 1 2 2 Conflicting-lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry group 2 2 5 5 )uration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 :-low Rates: Total in Lane 77 274 3 359 228 273 Left-Turn 16 39 3 0 228 0 Right-Turn 12 233 0 81 0 46 ?rop. Left-Turns 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 ?rop. Right-Turns 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 2 2 5 5 adjustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 zadj, computed -0. 1 -0.5 0.2 -0.1 0.2 -0.1 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 77 274 3 359 228 273 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3� final value 0.15 0.44 0.01 0.62 0. 41 0.46 )ve-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.3 Service Time 4.8 3.8 4.3 4.0 4.1 3.8 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 ciow 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 gip. headway, hd 6.78 5.81 6.60 6.26 6.42 6.12 rapacity 327 524 253 556 478 523 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 �Q .rtshorn s, Incorporated hone: Fax: Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS alyst: Hartshorn ency/Co. : Darnell ate Performed: 9/9/2002 nalysis Time Period: PM tersection: Graham/Glenstone risdiction: Huntington Beach 'nits: U. S. Customary *+_alysis Year: 2002+Project+IMPROV oject ID: 960404 Graham Street .st/West Street: Glenstone Ave forth/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics 1 Eastbound 1 Westbound Northbound I Southbound 1 I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R 1 I I I I I ,lume 16 0 2 17 0 22 16 402 9 131 340 19 1 Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 onfiguration LTR LTR L TR L TR IF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ?low Rate 8 29 6 411 31 359 Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 >. Lanes 1 1 2 2 ,_',posing-Lanes 1 1 2 2 conflicting-lanes 2 2 1 1 =Aometry group 2 2 5 5 Lration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 °':=ow Rates: Total in Lane 8 29 6 411 31 359 Left-Turn 6 7 6 0 31 0 Right-Turn 2 22 0 9 0 19 _op. Left-Turns 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 _op. Right-Turns 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 2 2 5 5 ijustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed -0.0 -0.4 0.2 -0.0 0.2 -0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 Flow rate 8 29 6 411 31 359 'd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 ^t, a.na.t v4iuc final value 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.56 0.04 0.49 .jve-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.3 Service Time 3.8 3.3 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.6 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 :iow Rate 8 29 6 411 31 359 Service Time 3.8 3.3 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.6 :ilization, x 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.56 0.04 0.49 >p. headway, hd 5.75 5.30 5.11 4.89 5.12 4.88 rapacity 258 279 256 661 281 609 Delay 8.83 8.54 7.85 13.60 8.05 12.13 )S A A A B A B ?proach: Delay 8.83 8.54 13.52 11.80 LOS A A B B itersection Delay 12.51 Intersection LOS B _rtshorn s, Incorporated hone: Fax: Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS alyst: Hartshorn ency/Co. : Darnell late Performed: 9/9/2002 malysis Time Period: AM tersection: Graham Street/Slater risdiction: Huntington Beach rnits: U. S. Customary Lnalysis Year: 1997 oject ID: 960404 - Graham Street :__st/West Street: Slater forth/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound 1 I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R 1 I I I I I flume 10 0 0 126 0 196 10 109 65 1141 41 0 1 s Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 >nfiguration L R TR LT IF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 26 196 174 182 , Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 >. Lanes 2 1 1 3posing-Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting-lanes 1 2 2 r=eometry group 1 1 2 2 iration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 "low Rates: Total in Lane 26 196 174 182 Left-Turn 26 0 0 141 Right-Turn 0 196 65 0 rop. Left-Turns 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 rop. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 1 2 2 djustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed 0.2 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 26 196 174 182 `d, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 i, final value ..� z•� . final value 0.04 0.22 0.21 0.24 :.ove-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 2.9 2.1 2.4 2.7 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 Flow Rate 26 196 174 182 Service Time 2.9 2.1 2.4 2.7 :ilization, x 0.04 0.22 0.21 0.24 sp. headway, hd 4.94 4.13 4.38 4.74 Capacity 276 446 424 432 Delay 8.12 8.33 8.56 9.22 )S A A A A .?proach: Delay 8.30 8.56 9.22 LOS A A A ztersection Delay 8.67 Intersection LOS A __artshorn Us, Incorporated Phone: Fax: -Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS aalyst: Hartshorn jency/Co. : Darnell Date Performed: 9/9/2002 Analysis Time Period: PM atersection: Graham Street/Slater urisdiction: Huntington Beach Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 1997 roject ID: 960404 - Graham Street ast/West Street: Slater North/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound 1 Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I ! I I 1 olume 10 0 0 144 0 209 10 52 27 1225 115 0 1 Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 onfiguration L R TR LT HF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 44 209 79 340 Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 o. Lanes 2 1 1 pposing-Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting-lanes 1 2 2 Geometry group 1 1 2 2 uration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 °'low Rates: Total in Lane 44 209 79 340 Left-Turn 44 0 0 225 Right-Turn 0 209 27 0 rop. Left-Turns 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 'rop. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 1 2 2 ,djustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 Ladj, computed 0.2 -0.6 -0.2 0.1 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 44 209 79 340 lid, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 �S "i, 111101 Vut�... final value 0.06 0.25 0.10 0.44 _-)ve-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.1 2.3 2.7 2.7 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 tiow Rate 44 209 79 340 Service Time 3.1 2.3 2.7 2.7 :ilization, x 0.06 0.25 0.10 0.44 Bp- headway, hd 5.12 4.32 4.69 4.70 Capacity 294 459 329 590 Delay 8.46 8.75 8.23 11.39 )S A A A B ?proach: Delay 8.70 8.23 11.39 LOS A A B atersection Delay 10.01 Intersection LOS B Yb .;artshorn Us, Incorporated Phone: Fax: ,-Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS ,nalyst: Hartshorn .gency/Co. : Darnell Date Performed: 9/9/2002 Analysis Time Period: AM Intersection: Graham Street/Slater rurisdiction: Huntington Beach Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2002 'roject ID: 960404 - Graham Street mast/West Street: Slater North/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound I Westbound 1 Northbound I Southbound I I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I I ! I I I rolume 10 0 0 117 0 251 10 157 70 1225 45 0 I Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 ;onfiguration L R TR LT ?HF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 17 251 227 270 % Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 Jo. Lanes 2 1 1 )pposing-Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting-lanes 1 2 2 Geometry group 1 1 2 2 )uration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 LI L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 glow Rates: Total in Lane 17 251 227 270 Left-Turn 17 0 0 225 Right-Turn 0 251 70 0 Prop. Left-Turns 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 1 2 2 Adjustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.2 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 17 251 227 270 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 , final value 0.03 0.31 0.30 0.37 __ove-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.3 2.5 2.7 3.0 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 rlow Rate 17 251 227 270 Service Time 3.3 2.5 2.7 3.0 tilization, x 0.03 0.31 0.30 0.37 ep. headway, hd 5.32 4.52 4.72 4.99 capacity 267 501 477 520 Delay 8.46 9.58 9.70 10.96 OS A A A B pproach: Delay 9.51 9.70 10.96 LOS A A B . ntersectlon Delay 10.08 Intersection LOS B �g iartshorn Us, Incorporated Phone: Fax: r.-Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS 'analyst: Hartshorn agency/Co. : Darnell Jate Performed: 9/9/2002 Analysis Time Period: PM Intersection: Graham Street/Slater Turisdiction: Huntington Beach Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2002 )roject ID: 960404 - Graham Street :ast/west street: Slater North/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics 1 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I I I i I I olume 10 0 0 143 0 300 10 69 24 1215 138 0 I Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 '"onfiguration L R TR LT 'HF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 43 300 93 353 Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 'o. Lanes 2 1 1 pposing-Lanes 0 1 1 conflicting-lanes 1 2 2 Geometry group 1 1 2 2 uration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 ,Flow Rates: Total in Lane 43 300 93 353 Left-Turn 43 0 0 215 Right-Turn 0 300 24 0 Drop. Left-Turns 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 rop. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 _rop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 1 2 2 "djustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed 0.2 -0.6 -0.2 0.1 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 43 300 93 353 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 n, rinai value , final value 0.06 0.37 0.13 0.48 Move-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.2 2.4 3.0 2.9 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 43 300 93 353 Service Time 3.2 2.4 3.0 2.9 'tilization, x 0.06 0.37 0.13 0.48 iep. headway, hd 5.24 4.43 5.02 4.94 Capacity 293 550 343 603 relay 8.59 10.01 8.77 12.47 ,OS A B A B .approach: Delay 9.83 8.77 12.47 LOS A A B :ntersection Delay 10.89 Intersection LOS B S0 rtshorn Ts, Incorporated ?hone: Fax: Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Lalyst: Hartshorn jency/Co. : Darnell Date Performed: 9/9/2002 4nalysis Time Period: AM itersection: Graham Street/Slater irisdiction: Huntington Beach inits: U. S. Customary analysis Year: 1997 Cumulative :oject ID: 960404 - Graham Street .tst/West Street: Slater North/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound 1 Southbound 1 L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I I I I I )lume 10 0 0 126 0 228 10 114 65 1187 52 0 I Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 3nfiguration L R TR LT U 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 26 228 179 239 % Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 3. Lanes 2 1 1 ?posing-Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting-lanes 1 2 2 Geometry group 1 2 2 aration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 ,71ow Rates: Total in Lane 26 228 179 239 Left-Turn 26 0 0 187 Right-Turn 0 228 65 0 rop. Left-Turns 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 rop. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 crop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 2 2 djustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed 0.2 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 26 228 179 239 "^d, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Sf final value 0.04 0.27 0.23 U.S/. )ve-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 service Time 3.1 2.3 2.6 2.8 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 .low Rate 26 228 179 239 Service Time 3.1 2.3 2.6 2.8 --tilization, x 0.04 0.27 0.23 0.32 ap. headway, hd 5.11 4.30 4.56 4.85 --apacity 276 478 429 489 Delay 8.30 8.91 8.90 10.13 0S A A A B pproach: Delay 8.85 8.90 10.13 LOS A A B atersection Delay 9.32 Intersection LOS A rtshorn Ts, Incorporated ?hone: Fax: Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS .alyst: Hartshorn �ency/Co. : Darnell )ate Performed: 9/9/2002 knalysis Time Period: PM Ltersection: Graham Street/Slater Lrisdiction: Huntington Beach Jnits: U. S. Customary knalysis Year: 1997 Cumulative ..oject ID: 960404 - Graham Street .st/West Street: Slater forth/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound ► Westbound 1 Northbound 1 Southbound I L T R ► L T R I L T R 1 L T R I I I 1 1 I )lume 10 0 0 144 0 267 10 66 27 1264 121 0 I Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 .nfiguration L R TR LT I :F 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 44 267 93 385 t Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 Lanes 2 1 1 ,posi.ng-Lanes 0 1 1 Zonflicting-lanes 1 2 2 3eometry group 1 2 2 :ration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 F?.ow Rates: Total in Lane 44 267 93 385 Left-Turn 44 0 0 264 Right-Turn 0 267 27 0 f ,op. Left-Turns 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1 •op. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 Lerop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Seometry Group 1 2 2 ? ;justments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0. 6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 i .dj, computed 0.2 -0. 6 -0.2 0.1 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 44 267 93 385 tl,?, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20�� 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 final value 0.06 0.33 0.13 0.52 _-)ve-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.3 2.5 3.0 2.9 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 eiow Rate 44 267 93 385 Service Time 3.3 2.5 3.0 2.9 :ilization, x 0.06 0.33 0.13 0.52 !p. headway, hd 5.31 4.50 4.97 4.89 :;apacity 294 517 343 635 delay 8.68 9.75 8.70 13.11 aS A A A B )proach: Delay 9.59 8.70 13.11 LOS A A B itersection Delay 11.20 Intersection LOS B s� 3rtshorn Us, Incorporated Phone: Fax: -Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS aalyst: Hartshorn gency/Co. : Darnell Late Performed: 9/9/2002 Analysis Time Period: AM ntersection: Graham Street/Slater urisdiction: Huntington Beach Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2002+project roject ID: 960404 - Graham Street ast/West Street: Slater North/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I I I I I i olume 10 0 0 117 0 268 10 160 70 1265 51 0 I Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 onfiguration L R TR LT BF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 r-low Rate 17 268 230 316 Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 c. Lanes 2 1 1 pposing-Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting-lanes 1 2 2 Geometry group 1 2 2 uration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 .Flow Rates: Total in Lane 17 268 230 316 Left-Turn 17 0 0 265 Right-Turn 0 268 70 0 -rop. Left-Turns 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 rop. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 .rop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 2 2 djustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 :adj, computed 0.2 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 17 268 230 316 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 SS final value 0.03 0.35 0.31 0.45 Love-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 service Time 3.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 ?low Rate 17 268 230 316 service Time 3.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 :ilization, x 0.03 0.35 0.31 0.45 :p. headway, hd 5.47 4.66 4.86 5.07 Capacity 267 518 480 566 -clay 9.61 10.11 10.02 12.08 )S A B B B -)proach: Delay 10.02 10.02 12.08 LOS B B B atersection Delay 10.81 Intersection LOS B S61 rzshorn s, Incorporated hone: Fax: Mail: ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS alyst: Hartshorn ency/Co. : Darnell late Performed: 9/9/2002 ,nalysis Time Period: PM .tersection: Graham Street/Slater risdiction: Huntington Beach (nits: U. S. Customary Lnalysis Year: 2002+project oject ID: 960404 - Graham Street .st/West Street: Slater forth/South Street: Graham Street Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound 1 Southbound I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I I I I I I flume 10 0 0 143 0 350 10 77 24 1236 141 0 Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 )nfiguration L R TR LT IF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 r•iow Rate 43 350 101 377 Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 >. Lanes 2 1 1 )posing-Lanes 0 1 1 Zonflicting-lanes 1 2 2 .3eometry group 1 2 2 iration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ill L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 71ow Rates: Total in Lane 43 350 101 377 Left-Turn 43 0 0 236 Right-Turn 0 350 24 0 -op. Left-Turns 1.0 0.0 0.0 0. 6 :op. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 crop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 2 2 ijustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed 0.2 -0.6 -0.1 0.1 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 43 350 101 377 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 S'7 final value 0.06 0.44 0.15 0.53 .)ve-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.4 2.6 3.2 3.1 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 .low Rate 43 350 101 377 Service Time 3.4 2.6 3.2 3.1 tilization, x 0.06 0.44 0.15 0.53 sp. headway, hd 5.36 4.55 5.23 5.09 ,-apacity 293 600 351 627 Delay 8.72 11.11 9.13 13.76 3S A B A B pproach: Delay 10.85 9.13 13.76 LOS B A B atersection Delay 11.91 Intersection LOS B ATTACHMENT 6 Neil Wagner 17241 Berlin Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649-4505 714-840-1205 September 6, 2002 Jan Shomaker c Planning Commission Chairperson SEP 0 92002 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 SUBJECT: EIR 97-2 Shea Homes Parkside Estates Dear Chairperson Shomaker, The subject EIR is deficient in the following areas. Traffic In the study of the three alternative roadway connections (Vol II, sect 6. 6) , no comment was made in any of the cases how the existence of a second access to the site would reduce the traffic impact to nearby residents using Graham, other than an unjustified statement in the "status" paragraph indicating the alternatives " [do] not reduce impacts of the proposed project." It seems to me that if 100 cars using a single access point are allowed to use two access points instead, there certainly will be a reduction in impact at the single access point. The final conclusion made in response to comments J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (Vol I, sect 3.3, letter #3) in not based in reality. Rather, the mitigation measure of installing a traffic signal at the single access point ("A" Street) will increase noise and traffic impacts along Graham. The noise of traffic accel- erating from the stop light will be far more annoying to nearby residents than the current constant speed traffic on that section of Graham. When southbound traffic on Graham is stopped at the "A" Street signal and backed up to Kenilworth, the Kenilworth traffic will be unable to exit onto north- bound Graham. Even if the traffic isn't backed up all the way to Kenilworth, the typical large SUVs of parents dropping their kids off at Marine View Mid- dle School in the mornings and afternoons will create visibility problems for Kenilworth traffic to safely enter Graham. The solution to both these prob- lems is to reduce the traffic impact from the site to a level that does not require a signal on Graham, and the way to do that is to provide a westerly access, no matter how costly, from Bolsa Chica Street to the site by one of the three proposed alternatives or some other alternative not yet considered. In my Draft EIR comment letter of June 10, 1998 (Vol III, letter #61) , I asked (item NW-4) about the likely grades that were given in the Draft EIR for the proposed alternate connections to Bolsa Chica Street. Besides the fact that this grade information is no longer present in the final EIR, the Draft EIR made a qualitative comparison of the given data to the grade of "Vineland." That's an apples/oranges comparison since Vineland is essen- tially flat. Probably what was intended was to compare the alternate roadway grades to the grade of Greentree, which is very steep as it heads north ito meet with Warner. The response to my comment (Vol I, sect 3. 3, letter #61) made no effort to correct this apparent error. Furthermore, the response does not answer my question about what is the maximum grade of Greentree. The answer instead gives the grade of Greenleaf which, like Vineland, is a flat road. If the existing grade of Greentree exceeds 8% as I believe it does, it serves as a precedent to refute the argument made by the traffic consultants that the three alternate roadways must be held to an 8% maximum grade. If the 8% max grade is not an absolute requirement, then the three alternate roadways could be implemented more easily by designing them with steeper grades. Fire Service The final EIR states (Vol II, sect 5.10) that "Currently, fire department re- sponse time to the project area does not meet the (response time] criteria." This revelation is obviously of great interest to existing residents sur- rounding the project site. The mitigation plan calling for sprinkler systems in the project homes is an incomplete solution as it does not address re- sponse time needs for non-fire (i.e. paramedic) emergency calls, nor does it address the deficiency in response time to nearby homes. That deficiency was/is intended to be made up by the addition of a fire station located at Graham and Kenilworth, the requirement for which is implied to be mandatory by the wording in the City' s May 1996 General Plan, Public Facilities Ele- ment. Yet, the EIR for this project states (Vol II, sect 3.7, third para- graph) that the City has determined that a fire station at this location is unnecessary. How is such a determination justified when it is conflict with the City's own General Plan and leaves areas of the city where the Fire De- partment's response time criteria cannot be met? Miscellaneous The consultant PSE's Response to Comments in the EIR technical appendices (Vol IIA, section 2) refers to fault zone figures (in section 1.1, for exam- ple) . None of the figures referred to are present in the final EIR, at least in the copies made available at the library. In the Existing Condition part of EIR section 5.3 (Vol II) , it is stated that the speed limit on Warner Avenue is "generally 50 mph." Besides being impre- cise, the speed limit on Warner east of Algonquin (to beyond Brookhurst) was reduced several years ago to 45 mph. What affect might that have on the traffic analysis and its impacts? Why did it take four full years to publish the responses to the comments made to the original Draft EIR? I had no idea how my letter would be responded to or what comments others had made during that entire time. More timely publi- cation of the responses would have given all interested parties time for a more thorough review of all the issues brought forth, and allowed them to re- spond accordingly. (If I had known the grade of Greenleaf was given in re- sponse to my query rather than the grade of Greentree as I had asked, I could have raised my concern about the error years ago. ) The delay in publishing the responses gives the impression that maybe the authoring of the entire EIR wasn't given the full attention it was due. The traffic and fire service issues discussed in this letter must be resolved before the Parkside Homes project can be approved. Sincerely, STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate,Suite 1000 Long Beach,CA 90802-4302 (562)590-5071 September 10, 2002 Mary Beth Broeren Planning Department City of Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2702 RE: Environmental Impact Report 97-2 (Parkside Estates) Dear Ms. Broeren: Thank for the opportunity to review the comments by Hasan Nouri of Rivertech, Inc. on our water quality letter of September 9, 2002 for the Parkside Estates EIR (EIR). Our comments on the EIR were based on the data and analysis of the EIR itself. As Mr. Nouri noted, additional research on the performance of water treatment methods since 1998 has documented the need for a future Urban Runoff Management Plan that will describe and identify the water quality treatment plan. In his letter, Mr. Nouri confirmed that the proposed structural BMPs in the EIR would not be sufficient on their own to mitigate impacts to water quality. We were aware that a future Urban Runoff Management Plan would be developed, but the general concept of the water quality mitigation plan proposed in the EIR did not indicate that the future plans would include other, more protective BMPs. Commission staff looks forward to the opportunity to work with the City's water quality staff to develop such a plan which will protect and enhance water quality and the biological integrity of Outer Bolsa Bay and Huntington Harbour. Sinc rely, Stephen Rynas, AICP Orange County Area Supervisor H:\Letters\City of Huntington Beach\BroerenMdoc Ina Ii1E` ��,��� i�P Ulm 71 IF.I w ;IO r.fjllL \� y sew\ 7 ��. -�'.-•yam• e'I' � ��� • •• Opp 6- po,,� ,A`\;, 4 ! Lei rr wvvv Ron A, -���������' �•� �\\ amA LAW EiriW-3.01-1 IL Ztt P room �� wT,a �++�f• v.,1\ tom\., �Y� � ���, �\ 1 �1 Al ������ ✓- V '�Y�>���p���L"��•��' � \, � +- 0 tieay�s1,11 �Mll/,IME--` \�\�f •� '11+ \\. \ i �� C c� �r U �✓� �;1� C�` V�^G)'►I h ■`; , ��a�Jet. \ Ilk N\R two RiO- _ "�w'rw,rw.. ,far ��r�F� �'t_ iW►�•� �E� P■ \ \\\\ �j , Rl VX \ ♦ i ��,1 MrA�+OVA-��\A 11 �. ;`\\h sir,�a�i,y�� ••!,,�Q� P``�' \� fit,\.-My•,-�bfr�J�` '� .,��=�� �..��!��'ty`�I 'Wo 70 714'� -A3 1 1 . •� \\ \\, i'..i ig� jT • ' i rn AM ' \�\ "''•��F✓ .'y rill ! Ago ���Id•' v. • \�'\t �,��i�� i ■f"�. t— .fir_' Neighbors for Wintersbur Wetlands Restoration CAwgent wgwnVegvWM�m C i x e a.�.4 , YeaNIMNaat�J",z Ppu�iFPrMrbwri{#F1�. �46�'a+MSMM�" '+3 y f t "v t a tYed<y*tfes� 'tfjA�AtACd CA�M4F 1 If �lnUn€I Tklaf COM!!� � � GmrgY.D7wuGah�nStlbC . http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ Hi, my name is Mark Bixby and I'm part of the Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration. These slides and more are available from my web site, www.bixby.org. 1 Increased Traffic Congestion • Graham Street already congested at peak periods • Congestion will be worsened by: — Marine View gym (in progress) — Parkside (proposed) — Hearthside/Fieldstone (proposed) • Circulation Alternative B needed to reduce the additional burden on Graham Street! http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 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. 2 Restriping — a Fraudulent Mitigation • The EIR proposes left-turn median striping to mitigate Graham congestion • But drivers are already using a de-facto 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 at Graham & Glenstone instead? http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 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. 3 Increased Traffic Noise • Moderate traffic noise already from cars "punching it" on northbound Graham to get over the Wintersburg bridge • A signal at Parkside will cause the same kind of noise for southbound Graham • The EIR only discusses CNEL generalities without mentioning this traffic noise! • CNEL inaccurate due to stale traffic study http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ The EIR CNEL 24-hour averages do not disclose the noise quality change that will occur when the Parkside signal on Graham converts flowing traffic into noisier stop and go traffic. And because the traffic study is grossly stale and inaccurate, the CNEL averages won't accurately reflect today's level of Graham traffic. 4 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 http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 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. 5 EIR Deficiencies — Traffic Data • Warner Ave data collected in 1994 and 1996 • Graham Street data collected in 1996 • Traffic counts that are 6-8 years stale do not accurately represent current traffic levels! • Some projected counts are dubious. .. hftp://www.bixby.org/parkside/ The last actual car counts in the traffic study date from `94 and `96, which do not capture the congestion caused by the completion of various commercial developments since then. 6 Omitted New Commercial Traffic Opened October 1994 Opened August1998 (Meadowlark Plaza) VAW4 Opened February 1995 http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ Meadowlark Plaza is reflected in the `96 Graham/Warner data, but not in the larger `94 Bolsa Chica traffic study data for Warner. Home Depot traffic is not captured at all! 7 Omitted Marine View Enrollment Growth of 14% 840 820 793 800 780 760 740 720 698 700 680 660 640 620 93-94 94-95 95.96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01.02 Most recent EIR traffic study ot Source:OVSD http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ Marine View is the primary cause of Graham congestion, and the EIR traffic report captured data during the lowest enrollment of the DECADE. How convenient! Tonight's staff report cites misleading enrollment data from 95-96, when it is really the 96- 97 data that most accurately reflects enrollment back in October '96 when the cars were last counted. 8 Omitted Glenstone U-turn L �\ 30/143 357/340 984/1252 0�n m 83/90 rn m 193/188 ►—624/866 84 704/1118 "u -.--598/922 r 42/97 41/70 r 84/195 r 30,000 28,300 30,000 / 25,000 s �s 4 a 78/88 I �' 133/168 J 1216 1321 -� N .i 984/1058 —� N 921/930 —�' u=\ / N u u u 189/233 u 90 171 urn u m 3/36 � a+N / a o PENOLETQV KENILWOR1X + � 196/209 26/44 N 150/330/4 7,200 r 3/8 1 �' m 2 0 f8^ N N +o 14 " u CLENSTONE C TRAFFIC SLATER AVE http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ Marine View traffic is so bad in the mornings that a huge left turn queue forms on southbound Graham at Glenstone. Ethically-challenged drivers cheat and avoid this queue by instead turning right onto Glenstone, U-turning, and then crossing Graham. The `96 traffic study alleges that only TWO cars make this U-turn during the entire peak hour of 7-8AM. Last Thursday I counted 27 cars doing this maneuver in only 10 minutes! 9 No Marine View Drop-offs? Existing Existing plus Project v `- 150/33 a. rn i50/33 0/4 p N f- 0/4 33/8 } 33/8 Glenstone Glenstone 15/14 �' 15/14 �1 2/0 4 0 2/0 m 10/14 z'' 10/14 1 hftp://www.bixby.org/parkside/ Note how the EIR traffic study says that Parkside won't increase the number of southbound Graham cars turning left onto Glenstone during the morning peak hour. This ludicrously implies that NO Parkside residents will be driving their children to Marine View. This is hard to believe! 10 Graham & Glenstone Peak Traffic Thursday, February 14, 2002, 7:35AM IM G } http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ The sterile and stale traffic study diagrams from `96 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. 11 Other Concerns • Slater Pump Station building permit and throttle-backs • Water quality impact of increased pumping • Shifting the flood risk • Fire station response times • Storm drain odors • Bolsa-Fairview earthquake fault http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ We also have serious concerns about non-traffic issues too. Here is a partial list of other things that we feel the EIR does not adequately address. 12 Accuracy Counts! • Invalid maps at study sessions • Missing sections from final EIR • Egregious typos ("4 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 http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 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. 13 It's Simply a Bad Project with a Bad EIR! • Too many negative impacts on existing neighborhoods • Too many omitted impacts and non- mitigations in the very deficient EIR • A failure of vision not in keeping with the forward-looking city that Huntington Beach ought to be! http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ In conclusion, this is simply a bad project with a bad EIR. Please vote to reject the EIR and to deny this project as presently constituted. THANK YOU! 14 The Parkside EIR Errata Proposal "The City also proposes to remove the fire station designation and descriptions of a fire station on the site, found within the General Plan; since no lowland development was approved as part of the Bolsa Chica project and since Station #6 is currently operational, the City has determined that a fire station at this location is unnecessary." (Parkside EIR Errata) Hello,my name is Julie Bixby. I'm here to discuss the Parkside EIR Errata proposal of removing the fire station designation from the General Plan. The City made this determination years before the City Fire Department weighed in on the subject. Now that it has,Errata pages state—on rather short notice—that Heil Station meets the emergency response time minimum standard of within 5- minutes 80% of the time for the Shea property, contrary to what was stated in the so-called"fmal" EIR. 1 Response Time Testing • Response tests conducted from Edwards Station are only "to the intersection of Slater and Graham. This intersection is at the northerly boundary of the deficient area. (F.D. Memo 9/4/02) • "Tests conducted by the Fire Department demonstrate that Station #6 is capable of meeting the 5 minutes emergency response time for the project." (Parkside EIR Errata) Based upon the Fire Department's time tests to Graham/Slater, the Parkside Errata EIR concludes that Edwards Station is also capable of meeting the response standard to the Shea property. 2 Response Time Testing (cont.) • "Station 6 has a consistent response time of 4 mintue 30 seconds to the intersection of Slater and Graham." (F.D. Memo 9/4/02) • Estimates consist of driving under normal conditions + one (1 ) minute of firefighter preparation. (per conversation 9/6/02 with Fire Division Chief Burney) How did the City make this determination? Their tests indicate a response time of 4 minutes, 30 seconds to the intersection of Slater& Graham from the Edwards station. These estimates include 1 minute prep time for the firefighters to suit up before moving out. 3 The City has not studied estimated response times to actual existing homes. . . we have! However,the City has not studied estimated response times to actual homes but we have! 4 Edwards Response Time Estimates D I ILI, 6:00•Greenleaf 1.�;_ 5:15-Glenstone f 4:30-Grhni/Slater 6:00-Bates s ? 5:45-Candle FAFIi EL OR tj cap 7,? M z V I E ft, 5:45-Felson it Ap • k1 11-Y AT', 67 5H 71 . 4 . 2 _7 ? O ? n H, ? r q % J1 ? 3r SEE r4 . trr 4 'A PM CP ST 1" r4 Lq -z 3 PON PIWUI th A PARK TOT CR 6 aRe P1 a PAR;VAQ1 rg 9 PARK'alim In is it 14 2- SEU i)PRAIVT M MOW LBO I,-it 14 MIAN P31 FA rl;CiM LN We went driving with a stopwatch,using the Fire Department memo as a starting point. The times you see listed are the 4 minutes, 30 seconds estimate to Graham/Slater, plus additional driving time through the tract to get to actual homes. We omitted time spent at stop signs and drove the speed limit on all streets, as a fire engine would. As you can see from our tests, Edwards Station may not necessarily respond to actual emergencies within the 5-minute standard. Note that we drove to the end of Greenleaf Lane as a simulation of what it would be'like traveling to the farthest reaches of the Parkside development. Can you believe that clocked in with the longest total driving time of 6 minutes! If that weren't enough, if it takes 5 minutes :45 seconds to get to the northern border of Hearthside/Fieldstone,are we talking upwards of 6 minutes to get to the southern border of that property if it gets developed? We believe there are still very valid questions about the City's degree of "confidence" that Edwards Station will be able to meet fire response time standards in this part of HB. 5 Cumulative Impact: Relocation of Heil Station • Relocation proposed since the 1974's. • Desire for relocation is to better serve the northern, industrial end of the city. Even the EIR Errata still admits, "Additional impacts to current response times are anticipated with relocation of the fire station." Let's not forget the long-proposed relocation of Heil Station, currently the fastest response to the Graham/Slater area. Even the EIR admits that relocating the station will affect response times,but does not go into any detail. Cumulative Impact: Relocated Heil Estimates • Production Station response time to Felson Circle (SE of Graham/Slater) is about 5 minutes 15 seconds. • Production Station response time to Bates Circle (SW of Graham/Slater) is about 5 minutes 25 seconds. So of course we had to. I don't have a pretty slide for this,but our time tests imply Southern Graham/Slater could have similar response time difficulties from the Production Station as we projected from Edwards Station. Summary of Projections: • Warner Station does not meet response times. • Edwards Station is "confident" that it can meet response times, but that is not yet official—still collecting real response data—and we feel is questionable based upon our tests. • When Heil Station relocates, more doubt enters the time response picture for South Graham/Slater residents. • EIR hasn't fully addressed the impact to nearby residents caused by altering the General Plan. So, to review: we know Warner Station does not meet response times for the area. Edwards Station is "confident"that it can meet response times, but that is not yet official. They are still collecting real response data from actual calls. We feel the issue is still questionable based upon our tests. When Heil Station relocates, more doubt enters the time response picture for South Graham/Slater residents. Thus, we feel that the Parkside EIR hasn't fully addressed the impact to nearby residents caused by altering the General Plan and removing the fire station designation from the site. 8 What's this still doing here? • "concluded that the proposal is acceptable from a fire safety standpoint as long as a traffic signal is installed at the Graham access (refer to traffic mitigation) and Mitigation Measure 1 of this section is implemented. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce impacts related to the need for adequate response times and additional fire protection services to a level less than significant." (Parkside Errata EIR) • Why are mitigation measures still necessary if the development supposedly no longer has a response problem? As if all that weren't enough cause for concern,the Parkside EIR still includes fire safety mitigation. If the City is so confident about response times,why are mitigation measures still included? 9 Your Guess is as Good as Mine There are just too many uncertainties whether response times are acceptable to the ENTIRE deficient area noted in the General Plan, either now or once Heil is relocated. Your guess is as good as mine. There are just too many uncertainties whether response times are acceptable to the ENTIRE deficient area noted in the General Plan, either now or.once Heil is relocated. 10 It's truly a life-or-death decision . 65% of all emergency calls to the Fire Department are for medical aid. We feel the City needs to take a closer look at potential cumulative impacts to the existing homes surrounding the Shea property before making this life-or-death decision. Thank you. 11 ATTACHMENT 7 PC Minutes September 10, 2002 Page 24 DRAFT 4. All ap icable Public Works fees shall be paid. 5. The develo ent shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building ivision, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire des, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 6. Construction shall be li 'ted to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be pro ' ited Sundays and Federal holidays. 7. An encroachment fee shall be quired for all work within the City's right-of-way. 8. The applicant shall submit a check i the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of ange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and s mined to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commis 'on's action. 9. Standard landscape code requirements apply ( apter 323 of the HBZSO). 10.All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and cl n manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or re acing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Publ Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval b the Planning Commission. 11.All signs shall conform to the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new 'gns, or changing sign faces, a building permit shall be obtained from the P ning Department. 12.A Certificate of Occupancy must be issued by the Planning Department a Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the building. B-3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-2 (PARKSIDE ESTATES): Applicant: Shea Homes Request: EIR: To certify EIR No. 97-2 which analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Location: 17301 Graham Street(west side of Graham Street, south of Warner Avenue, adjacent to the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel). Project Planner: Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (EIR No. 97-2): - Analyzes proposed development on an approximate 49 acre vacant site for the purpose of constructing up to 208 homes, associated infrastructure and private and public open space. - Documents potential impacts to land use compatibility, aesthetics/light glare, transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, earth resources, drainage/hydrology, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. - Evaluates nine alternatives to the originally-proposed 208 unit project. (02pcm0910) PC Minutes September 10, 2002 Page 25 - Concludes that Alternatives 1, 7 and 9 are the environmentally superior alternatives. - Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels for the original project and all of the alternatives. Staff's Recommendation: - Certify EIR No. 97-2 because it adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. Staff made a presentation to the Commission. Commissioner's Stanton, Kerins, Hardy, Shomaker, Livengood, Kokal and Porter made disclosures, including speaking with the applicant and interested members of the community on the proposed project. B-3b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 98-1; ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 96- 5A& 96-5B: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 96-4: ANNEXATION NO. 98-1 (PARKSIDE ESTATES): Applicant: Shea Homes Request: GPA: To redesignate 2.8 acres of RL-7 (Residential Low Density) property to OS-P (Open Space-Park); to designate approximately 1.5 acres of the unincorporated parcel as RL-7 (Residential Low Density), and approximately 3.0 acres of the unincorporated parcel as OS-C (Open Space-Conservation); and to amend the Public Facilities Element by removing the fire station designation on the subject site. ZMA: A) To rezone approximately 40 acres of property to add a CZ (Coastal Zone Overlay) to the existing RL-FP2 (Low Density Residential - Floodplain Overlay) designation, and rezone approximately 8.2 acres from RA-CZ (Residential Agriculture-Coastal Zone) and RL-FP2 to OS-PR-CZ (Open Space - Parks and Recreation-Coastal Zone) consistent with the General Plan; B) To prezone approximately 1.5 acres of the unincorporated parcel to RL-7 (Residential Low Density), and approximately 3.0 acres of the unincorporated parcel to OS-C (Open Space Conservation). LCPA: To amend the City's Local Coastal Program's Land Use Plan and implementing ordinances in accordance with the GPA and ZMA and forward to the California Coastal Commission for certification. The request also includes annexation of approximately 4.5 acres into the City from the County of Orange. Location: 17301 Graham Street(west side of Graham Street, south of Warner Avenue, adjacent to the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel). Project Planner: Scott Hess, Planning Manager General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 request: - Redesignate 2.8 acres of RL-7 (Low Density Residential) property to OS- P (Open Space-Park). - Designate the approximately 4.9-acre County of Orange parcel to be annexed as follows: approximately 1.6 acres as RL-7 (Residential Low Density) and approximately 3.3 acres as OS-C (Open Space- Conservation). (02pcm0910) PC Minutes September 10, 2002 Page 26 - Amend the Public Facilities Element to remove the fire station designation on the subject site. • Zoning Map Amendment 96-5A &5B request: - 5A - Rezone approx. 40 acres of property to add a CZ (Coastal Zone Overlay) to the existing RL-FP2 (Low Density Residential- Floodplain Overlay) designation; and rezone 8.2 acres from RA-CZ (Residential Agriculture-Coastal Zone) and RL-FP2 (Low Density Residential) to OS-PR-CZ (Open Space-Parks and Recreation-Coastal Zone) consistent with the General Plan. - 5B- Pre-zone the approximately 4.9 acre County of Orange parcel as follows: approximately 1.6 acres RL-7-FP2-CZ (Residential Low Density - Floodplain Overlay-Coastal Zone Overlay); and approximately 3.3 acres CC-FP2-CZ (Coastal Conservation- Floodplain Overlay-Coastal Zone Overlay). • Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4 - Amend Local Coastal Program/Coastal Element in accord with proposed General Plan Amendment&Zoning Map Amendment, and certify area consistent with the City's General Plan. Annexation No. 98-1 - Annex approximately 4.9 acres of vacant property into the City of Huntington Beach. Staffs Recommendation: Approve General Plan Amendment No. 98-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5A & 5B, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4 based upon the following: - The proposed general plan amendment amends the General Plan Land Use Map to accommodate a larger and more useable neighborhood park area and designates the annexation area for low density residential uses and open space conservation. The proposed RL land use designation on the area proposed for annexation will result in lower density than is currently allowed under the County designation. The Fire Department has determined that a station is not needed at this location. - The proposed zoning map amendment amends the City's zoning map to accommodate a larger and more useable neighborhood park area, adds the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix to ensure that zoning provisions consistent with the California Coastal Act are applied, and pre-zones the annexation area for low density residential and open space conservation uses consistent with the General Plan Amendment. - The proposed changes will result in compatible land uses and will not negatively impact surrounding properties. - The proposed amendments to General Plan and zoning designations will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Staff made a presentation to the Commission. (02p=0910) PC Minutes September 10, 2002 Page 27 B-3c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 15377 (CITY)AND 15419 (COUNTY); CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-90; COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 96-18 (PARKSIDE ESTATES): Applicant: Shea Homes Request: TTM: To subdivide approximately 45 acres into 162 residential lots (City), and to subdivide approximately 4.5 acres into 9 residential lots (County). CUP: To develop 171 single-family residential units, including creation of property development standards for dual-product lot sizes, associated infrastructure improvements, 8.2 acres of park improvements, proposed retaining walls with heights of greater than two (2) feet, and develop on a property with a grade differential of greater than three (3) feet between low and high points on the property. CDP* To permit subdivision and development of the site and associated infrastructure improvements pursuant to the TTM and CUP. Location: 17301 Graham Street(west side of Graham Street, south of Warner Avenue, adjacent to the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel). Project Planner: Scott Hess, Planning Manager Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City) request: - Subdivide approximately 45 acres into 162 single family residential lots and several lettered lots for open space areas. - Dedicate 8.2 acres of land for public park purposes consisting of 4.1± acres of bluff and down slopes, and a 4.1+ acre flat area at the base of the bluff. - Lettered lots include 2.9+ acres of HOA common areas, paseo park, and passive areas. Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 (County) request: - Subdivide approximately 4.9 acres into nine single family residential lots (1.6±acres) and lettered lots for open space areas. - Lettered lots include a 3.3±acre HOA passive open space area. • Conditional Use Permit No. 96-90 request: - Development of 171 single family residential units with site plans, floor plans, and elevations. - Planned Unit Development(PUD) for dual-product lot sizes to include 50' frontages and min. 5,000 sq. ft. lot sizes (average 5,700 sq. ft.); and 60' frontages with min. 6,000 sq. ft. lot sizes (avg. >7,000 sq. ft.); and six flag lots with 24' frontages. Those lots that are less than the code requirement of 60' in width and 6,000 sq. ft in size may be permitted as part of a PUD. - Improve an 8.2 acre park (4.1 acres passive area and 4.1 acres active recreational area). - Retaining walls greater than two ft. in height and up to 3.5 ft. in height along the westerly property line adjacent to property within the County of Orange and adjacent to the channel. - Development on a site with a grade differential of greater than three (3) feet. Coastal Development Permit No. 96-18 request: - Development of 171 two-story, detached, single family residential units and associated infrastructure improvements. (02pcm0910) PC Minutes September 10, 2002 Page 28 - Development of an 8.2 acre park Associated requests for General Plan Amendment No. 98-1, Local Program Amendment No. 96-4, Zoning Amendment Nos. 96-5A &5B, and Annexation No. 98A are discussed in a separate report. Staffs Recommendation: Approve Tentative Tract Map Nos. 15377 and 15419, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-90, and Coastal Development Permit No. 96-18 with modifications, CEQA Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the following: - The site has been zoned and general planned as low density residential for 31 years. - The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RL-7 (Low Density Residential) and proposed designation of RL-7 on the subject property. - The project is consistent with the Local Coastal Program/Coastal Element as it does not impact public access or recreational opportunities in the Coastal Zone. - There are several public improvements to be constructed as a result of this project including a traffic signal, storm drainage improvements and flood control protection to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure. - Grading, including the import of fill on the property, is consistent with FEMA requirements. - Drainage improvements, when completed and certified by FEMA, will permit FEMA to upgrade the flood insurance map. The new flood insurance map will result in approximately 1430 acres consisting of 7,000 housing units being removed from the mandatory flood insurance zone. - Sheet piling will be installed along the developed portion of Parkside Estates at the northerly edge of the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel to increase channel capacity and provide flood protection for the area. - 28% of the project area (14.4 acres)will be in open space: an 8.2 acre dedicated public park(5.9 acres dedicated above code requirement) and 6.2 acres of common open space area. - The project along with the 10% affordable housing requirement helps the City meet housing goals. - Project is well-designed in terms of street layout and architecture. - The project is designed to be compatible with adjacent low density residential uses in terms of density and building layout, and open space uses. Staff's Suggested Modifications: Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 and 15419, Conditional Use Permit No. 96- 90, and Coastal Development Permit No. 96-18: - Delete Lot No. 4 of Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 to create a minimum 100' buffer between potential jurisdictional wetlands and the single family homes. (02p=0910) PC Minutes September 10, 2002 Page 29 - Dedicate for public pedestrian easement purposes two trails linking the flood control channel with "L" street and with "C" street in accord with the trails exhibit. - Increase interior side yards (minimum 10')when adjacent to the rear yard of an adjoining lot. - Provide 25% of minimum 60'wide lots with side entry and/or garages located to rear of lot. - The public sidewalk in the paseo park area shall be meandering. - Delete on plans reference to a new wall along the north property line (the existing wall may remain since the grade differential will remain the same). - Public art shall be required. Staff made a presentation to the Commission. Questions/comments included: • Written concerns on Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 received from the California Coastal Commission • Response to written concerns by staff, EDAW and Rivertech • Water Quality Management Plan (future Urban Water Plan development) • Best Management Practices (BMPs) • Sully Miller Lake (size and outlet plans) • Slater Pump Station discharge and expansion (retention and detention) • Flood control ("throttling down" effect within the County water system) • Information provided on the 100-year storm scenario (peak flow at Slater Pump Station, offsite/onsite drainage fact sheet, gravity, retention areas) • Public notification/Brown Act requirements • $4M FEMA funding for detailed hydrology study done by Simons& Lee • Probability of additional pump station on the Shea property (too costly and not necessary) • FEMA/CLOMR Exhibits (reduction in floodplain and "reduction insurance" available to 7,000 homes) • Site discharge (measurements and "time of concentration") • Incorrect datum (point of reference near the Huntington Beach Pier) • County permits (must be obtained prior to City permits for Slater Pump Station activity) • Number of pumps required at Slater Pump Station • Holly Seacliff drainage patterns THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Ron Metzler, Shea Homes, applicant, made a presentation to the Commission. Mr. Metzler gave a brief explanation of how plans for the project evolved and provided information on floodplain issues (drainage patterns, water quality, grading plan, insurance ratings), traffic analysis, land use compatibility, lot sizes, community enhancements and open space/park improvements. (02p=0910) PC Minutes September 10, 2002 Page 30 Mike Buley, Ocean Hill Drive, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item on behalf of his father. He urged the Commission to deny any plans for access to the development from Greenleaf Lane. Julianne Blake, Kenilworth Drive, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns primarily related to traffic. Dr. Robert Winchell, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, discussing geology/flooding issues including faulting and liquefaction. He stated that the project's environmental impact report was not a full disclosure document. He provided a map with fault information to the Commission. Julie Bixby, Hillgate Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item. She provided a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the Parkside EIR Errata proposal of removing the fire station designation from the General Plan, relocation of the Heil Fire Station and public service emergency response times. Mark Bixby, Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration, spoke in opposition to the item. Mr. Bixby provided a PowerPoint presentation to identify areas of concern related to traffic impact and informational deficiencies existing within the environmental impact report. Robert Dingwall, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item and voiced concerns related to flooding. Robert Harrison, Greenwich Drive, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item. Mr. Harrison provided a PowerPoint presentation and provided information from the County on rain data related to the Slater Pump Station, water quality and bacteria levels, and County permit requirements. He also discussed land history and best land usage. Bill Steele, Glenroy Drive, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns related to traffic, flooding and subsidence. He asked the Commission to identify who will indemnify property owners for sinkage caused by the proposed development. Barry Speigel, Greenleaf Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns about flooding and how increased land levels will affect Kenilworth Drive. Patricia Keppler, Kenilworth Drive, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item. Ms. Keppler discussed the second access to Bolsa Chica and her opposition to the opening of Greenleaf Lane. She also voiced concerns on how subsidence, dirt and dust create long term property damage. Doug Stewart, Kenilworth Drive, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns related to hydrology, public service response times and negative traffic impact. He stated that the City should be responsible to indemnify property owners for damages caused by the proposed development. (02pcm0910) PC Minutes September 10, 2002 Page 31 Charles Beauregard, Greenleaf Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item. He discussed information provided in a report by the Metropolitan Water District related to inappropriate water table levels that would prohibit building. He stated that the best use for the property would be to restore it to its natural state. Dean Albright, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns about storm water runoff on Warner Avenue and health- hazardous conditions resulting from subsidence underneath homes. Fred Graylee, Hunsaker&Associates, consultant on the proposed project, spoke in support of the item. Mr. Graylee informed the Commission of the staffs and consultants' diligence and careful planning on the proposed project. He also explained grading requirements mandated by FEMA and recommended that the Commission consider approval based on expert testimony. Monica Hamilton, Kenilworth Drive, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, stating that a home is a person's largest investment. She voiced concerns related to traffic, subsidence and the project's construction timeframe. She also discussed the second access to Bolsa Chica Street and her opposition to opening Greenleaf Lane. .Dick Harlow, Main Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item on behalf of the applicant. He informed the Commission that City staff, consultants, FEMA and County of Orange representatives worked hard to make sense of a good project. He discussed access on Bolsa Chica and assured the Commission that Greenleaf Lane would not be opened. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Staff read into the record a summary of letters received that evening from people that had signed up to speak, but because of the late hour had left the meeting. Discussion ensued regarding the environmental impact report certification process. The Commission discussed continuing the item with specific issues to be addressed such as: • Response to concerns received by the California Coastal Commission • Subsidence/liquefaction • Fault lines • Water flow(El Nino scenario) • Flood control capacity • Comparison of methods used in the 1993 Master Plan of Storm Drainage versus the 2000 Study • Fire Department response times (02pcm0910) PC Minutes September 10, 2002 Page 32 • Slater Pump Station capacity (cubic feet per second) • Water migration and legal implications A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY KOKAL, TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-2 (PARKSIDE ESTATES) TO SEPTEMBER 24, 2002, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stanton, Kerins, Hardy, Shomaker, Livengood, Kokal, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C. C NSENT CALENDAR C-1. LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 13 2002 A MOTION S MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY HARDY, TO APPROVE PLANNING C MISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 13, 2002, BY THE FOLLOWING V E: AYES: Stanto Kerins, Hardy, Shomaker, Livengood, Kokal, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS—None. E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS E-1. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE R ORTS— None. E-2. PLANNING COMMISSION IN UIRIES/COMME S Commissioner Stanton— None. Commissioner Kerins—inquired if it were possible t\0ject. hting through computer simulation for the Strand, Blocks 1so requested that Code Enforcement pay close attentiontreet lights and trees. Commissioner Hardy— None. (02pcm0910) ATTACHMENT 8 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director BY: Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Plannei�:-� DATE: September 24,2002 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-2 (Continued From September 10,2002 With Public Hearing Closed) (Parkside Estates) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Ron Metzler, Shea Homes, 603 S. Valencia Ave., Ste. 200,Brea, CA 92823 LOCATION: 17301 Graham St. (West side of Graham Street, south of Kenilworth Drive, adjacent to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (EIR.No. 97-2): - Analyzes proposed development on an approximate 49 acre vacant site for the purpose of constructing up to 208 homes, associated infrastructure and private and public open space. - Documents potential impacts to land use compatibility, aesthetics/light glare,transportation/ circulation, air quality,noise, earth resources, drainage/hydrology,biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. - Evaluates nine alternatives to the originally-proposed 208 unit project. - Concludes that Alternatives 1, 7 and 9 are the environmentally superior alternatives. - Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels for the original project and all of the alternatives. • Continued Item - Planning Commission meeting September 10,2002. Planning Commission requested clarification regarding nine items pertaining to the EIR. Staff Recommendation: - Certify EIR No. 97-2 because it adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1574(Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 and direct staff accordingly." B. "Continue certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (EIR No. 97-2) represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the subdivision of approximately 49 acres of vacant land for the purpose of developing up to 208 single family residential units, associated infrastructure and private and public open space. The project includes the annexation of approximately five acres of unincorporated area into the City's jurisdiction, a general plan amendment, zoning map amendment and local coastal program amendment. At the September 10,2002 Planning Commission meeting,the Planning Commission continued action on EIR No. 97-2 and requested that staff provide written responses to issues pertaining to the Environmental Impact Report regarding the following topics: 1. Coastal Commission staff correspondence dated September 9,2002 2. Subsidence(including water migration and legal implications thereof) 3. Fault lines 4. Flooding(flow of water, including back to back El Nino storms) 5. Flood Control capacity 6. City's Master Plan of Storm Drainage [comparison of methods used for '93 (4597 cfs) and '00(1310 cfs) studies] 7. Fire Department response times 8. Maximum capacity for Slater Pump Station(what is our limit, has it been exceeded) 9. Liquefaction ANALYSIS: Staff has provided written responses to address the above topics. The responses are based on information in the EIR, its Technical Appendices and the Response to Comments. A summary response is provided in the body of the staff report, and additional information is provided in the attachments as backup material. Staff has attached reference documents and correspondence that were discussed at the September 10a'meeting to facilitate your review of the material. In addition to the information requested by the Planning Commission, the analysis includes responses to outstanding issues raised in the written correspondence that was attached to the staff report as well as late communication that was received after the September 10,2002 meeting. Staff Report—9/24/02 -2- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) Information requested by the Planning Commission 1. Coastal Commission staff correspondence dated September 9, 2002 On September 9, 2002, the Department of Planning received correspondence from Coastal Commission (CCC) staff regarding the EIR. This was distributed to the Planning Commission at the September 10, 2002 Study Session (Attachment No. 3.1-3.8). The correspondence recommended that the EIR not be certified based on water quality concerns and also noted that other Coastal Act concerns discussed in their prior letters on the EIR remain. In response to this, City staff contacted the CCC staff and provided them with a memorandum from Mr. Hasan Nouri,Rivertech, Inc., the water quality consultant on the project, (Attachment No. 3.9-3.10) and a copy of the recommended condition on the Tentative Tract Maps, etc. regarding water quality. At approximately 5:18 p.m. on September 1&, the CCC staff sent an additional correspondence to staff regarding the project. This was handed out to the Planning Commission at the September 10, 2002 Meeting(Attachment No. 3.11). The Planning Commission requested that staff respond. The EIR was prepared to meet the requirements of CEQA, i.e., to consider the significance of the changes to the environment caused by implementation of the residential development project and alternatives. CEQA does not require, nor does EIR analysis typically include a detailed Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) as requested by CCC staff because the plan is prepared once final design plans/site plans are in process. CEQA documents, for a project of this nature, typically only provide the general level of analysis provided on pages 5-138, 5-141 through 5-142 of the EIR including mitigation measures 2 and 3 (recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board), which require the applicant comply with NPDES requirements and obtain the necessary permits prior to the issuance of grading permits. The Rivertech reports of 1998 and 2002,which are part of the EIR, provide additional quantitative information related to water quality impacts in response to public comments. It would be premature to prepare a detailed URMP at this stage of the project, because the final project design may change or be further refined upon project approval via conditions of that approval. Based on the comments from CCC staff, it appears that they are requesting information that is normally associated with a permit application, e.g. coastal development permit application to the Coastal Commission, and using the Coastal Act as the level of review instead of CEQA. The level of detail they have requested is unprecedented to the City's and its consultant's knowledge or experience for a project at this stage. The City has routinely indicated in its environmental documents that a Water Quality Management Plan would be prepared, including specific BMPs, prior to issuance of grading or building permits. We believe that the CCC staff s recent assertions and requests for more detailed plans is without sufficient merit or bearing at this stage to deem it inconsistent with CEQA requirements and that the EIR is adequate. City staff has communicated this to the Coastal Commission and will forward any response that it receives to the Planning Commission. Notwithstanding the above, we did respond to the request for information regarding various BMPs and other items in their correspondence. The project water quality consultant has provided a response memorandum that is attached for your information(Attachment No. 3.12-3.16). The CCC staff September 10"' letter states "the EIR did not indicate that the future plans would include, more protective BMPs." We believe that this is an inaccurate statement. Mitigation Measure 3, Drainage/Hydrology, states: Staff Report—9/24/02 -3- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) "Prior to issuance of the grading permits, the applicant shall provide a Water Quality Management Plan showing conformance to the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and NPDES requirements (enacted by the EPA) for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practical using management practices, control techniques and system, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions which are appropriate." It is clear to City staff that this means a variety of feasible BMPs will be evaluated. The mitigation measure does not say that only the BMPs that were mentioned in the EIR or its technical studies will be employed but rather that this project will be held to the same standard as every other development project in terms of complying with accepted standards. Morover, the EIR itself does not indicate a certain set of BMPs. On page 5-141, it reads: "Stormwater flows from the future buildout of the residential project will be subject to the NPDES permit process. Throughout the NPDES Permit process,the City currently requires contributors to non-point runoff pollution to establish Best Management Practices(BMPs)to minimize the potential for pollution. Under this program the developer is responsible for identification and implementation of a program of BMPs which can include special scheduling of project activities, prohibitions of certain practices, establishment of certain maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of downstream waters. Typical elements of such a BMP program include..." While the Addendum reports in the Technical Appendices do evaluate specific BMPs, e.g. CDS units, these reports are intended to provide a conceptual level of analysis regarding possible options/ recommendations for the project. They do not override or negate the mitigation measure and EIR discussion excerpted above. Thus, staff believes that the CCC staff is inaccurate in its conclusion. Regarding the"many Coastal Act concerns discussed in our prior letters remain"statement from the September 9 h letter, staff spoke with CCC staff. CCC staff indicated that they did not intend for that to have a bearing on the EIR discussion, but rather when the City submits its LCPA to the CCC, CCC staff will be evaluating the project regarding the various comments they have had on the project in the comment letters,which are contained in the EIR. CCC staff indicated that they will review the LCPA application to see if those previous issues "are still relevant." In terms of those previous issues, City staff believes they have been responded to and that once CCC staff reviews the information this will become evident. Finally, it is important to note that the City hired a water quality engineer in the Public Works Department, Ms. Geraldine Lucas. Ms. Lucas is the project manager for the citywide Water Quality Master Plan and is involved in the review of all project components as they pertain to water quality. Ms. Lucas has been involved in the review of documentation for the Parkside Estates project and believes that it is consistent with industry practice. Staff Report—9/24/02 -4- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) 2. Subsidence(dewatering, including water migration and legal implications thereof) Questions were raised regarding the potential impacts associated with dewatering, i.e. subsidence, to the property to the north. The information below is excerpted from the Response to Comments for the EIR and consultation with the geotechnical consultant and applicant. Groundwater has been observed below the subject site at depths varying from approximately four feet to as much as 19 feet below ground surface (bgs). Groundwater at the site takes two forms. First, a regional groundwater surface exists below the site with seasonal elevations varying from approximately 9 feet below mean sea level (msl) to 19 feet below msl. These levels have been observed to vary seasonally. Shallower groundwater has been observed below portions of the site and consists of localized concentrations of perched water. The source of the water is not regional, but rather is derived from local irrigation and precipitation sources. Based upon excavations that were monitored in March and May 1998, digging to depths of approximately 10 feet, water levels at that period were approximately 6 feet below ground surface(bgs). The remedial grading necessary to mitigate potential settlement includes overexcavation of loose/soft, compressible soils to depths varying from 5 to 19 feet. The grading and construction dewatering effort will consist of a combination of several techniques. The primary technique,which will be used in proximity to the northerly project development limit, will be initiated approximately 40 feet south of the north boundary and will consist of accomplishing the excavation of the upper 4+ feet with conventional earth moving equipment (scrapers). At that point, further excavation of wetter materials will be accomplished with a large excavator (backhoe). The excavation will predominately be 10 feet deep or less except for the extreme easterly one-third of the boundary where removals will be on the order of 15 feet. Dewatering of this northerly boundary area will be accomplished by surface pumps within the excavation. The excavations will be segmented in approximate 200 x 200 feet±increments that will be refilled with a mixture of materials from an adjacent excavation and drier import materials as needed. Within the interior of the project, dewatering will be accomplished with similar surface pumps, supplemented with local shallow well points, and dewatering wells. Remedial grading activities will be setback from the north property line by at least 40 feet at the top of excavation and 50 feet at the bottom. Neither dewatering nor remedial grading will be required for the Paseo Park area, thus, activities will occur no closer than 40 feet to the north property line or 50 to 75 feet from existing residences. The local grading dewatering efforts are not expected to affect existing properties to the north. Accomplishment of the remedial grading in relatively small(200+feet wide) segments will allow replacement of the overexcavated volume within one to two days after achieving the overexcavation bottom. Thus, grading activities, including local dewatering efforts in proximity to any given adjacent property, will be complete within a few days after initiation of grading activities at that location. Local dewatering of the perched water zones and timely refilling of the overexcavation voids will not affect the groundwater conditions below offsite residences. Dewatering efforts in proximity to Wintersburg Channel will likely require the assistance of dewatering wells;however, the channel is some 400 feet to 1000 feet south of the north boundary and the temporary drawdown influence from these extraction wells will not extend to northerly offsite areas. Since the regional groundwater regime below the offsite structures is unaffected by the proposed activities, a subsidence response is not a necessary consequence. Staff Report—9/24/02 -5- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) It should be noted that similar conditions have been encountered elsewhere and procedures similar to those proposed for this site have been successfully implemented on numerous projects throughout the Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, and Westminster areas. Specifically, within the City of Huntington Beach, similar mitigation techniques have been successful in construction of a shopping center at the northeast corner of Goldenwest and Warner and a residential development at the southeast comer of Beach and Adams. There is no indication that adjoining properties were impacted in other projects. Although subsidence impacts are not expected for the properties to the north, the project includes a mitigation measure that requires monitoring the boundary conditions and adjusting dewatering activities immediately if monitoring wells show ground water level changes which may affect subsidence of adjacent properties. This will be completed for two basic reasons: 1) to detect if there is a change in conditions and impacts to the adjacent property to the north and 2) to document existing conditions. As has been indicated in verbal and written testimony on this project, the existing property owners to the north believe that their properties have already experienced settlement. This may be due to a number of factors including the construction standards, methods and controls that were required when their homes were built. In such a case, no matter what may be developed on the adjacent property, their properties may continue to experience settlement effects. The proposed monitoring includes the following tasks that are planned to be accomplished prior to and/or during site grading: 1. Conduct a topographic survey of existing conditions; 2. Install piezometers to monitor groundwater levels; 3. Install and monitor survey monuments; 4. Prepare a detailed dewatering plan for review by the governing agency(s). Staff believes that the proposed dewatering methods are time-tested and that sufficient analysis has been included in the EIR regarding potential subsidence impacts associated with dewatering. The proposed monitoring will allow the developer and the City inspectors to quickly identify any problems related to the project that may arise, even though they are not expected due to the distance between the existing'homes and the dewatering effort and the proposed grading/overexcavation procedure. The mitigation measure requires that the dewatering plan be prepared by an expert in the field and submitted to the City for review and approval (Condition 5.ss. on Attachment No. 1.15 of the September 1O'h Tentative Tract staff report). Although staff does not believe it necessary, the Planning Commission could add a condition regarding the dewatering effort that the dewatering plan be reviewed by a third party geotechnical consultant and/or that a third party geotechnical inspector be available on-site during dewatering to monitor the conditions. In terms of legal implications related to potential impacts, staff believes that documentation (evidence) would need to be provided that can distinguish pre-existing or current settlement conditions on the properties and the potential impact associated with the project, if any, as distinguished from continued settlement impacts unassociated with the project. Affected parties could pursue legal means if they so chose. Staff believes that the proposed monitoring, including documenting existing conditions, would assist both the developer and property owners to the north in this regard. Staff Report—9/24/02 -6- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) 3. Fault lines A question was raised as to whether the EIR adequately analyzed potential impacts associated with the Newport-Inglewood (N-I) Fault as well as the Bolsa-Fairview (B-F) Fault. The summary below is based on information provided in the EIR and Response to Comments. Attachment No. 4.1-4.4 contains the detailed response BW-2 in its entirety, including referenced figures. Bolsa-Fairview Fault According to the geotechnical consultant, PSE, the EIR discussed both the N-I fault zone and the B- F Fault as mapped by the California Dept. of Water Resources (CDWR). PSE also summarized the reasons the B-F is neither included in an Alquist-Priolo zone, nor afforded a structural setback on the study site. The activity-level of the B-F is particularly important because it has been inferred to underlie the site, hence its importance relative to the potential for fault ground rupture. According to PSE, the B-F was first mapped at and near the study site by CDWR in 1968. The City of Huntington Beach General Plan EIR and the State of California in 1986 indicate, however, that the fault is not active based on a variety of arguments. A map of the N-I zone depicts the B-F as "inactive or non-existent." Several lines of evidence lead to the conclusion that the B-F, if extant, is pre-Holocene. These reasons are detailed in Attachment No. 4. From a site-specific standpoint, examination of both hollowstem-auger borings and cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings in the context of the regional geology suggests that if indeed the B-F is present beneath the surface at the study site, it is pre-Holocene and thus not active according to Alquist-Priolo standards and City policies. Therefore,no fault setbacks are recommended. In summary,PSE completed a site-specific investigation,using methodologies accepted by the City for similar projects near the N-I, that indicates that the site is not underlain by active faults. Specifically, PSE developed a site-specific stratigraphy,based on Pleistocene/Holocene climatic and sea level changes that is useful for judging fault activity levels, and demonstrated absence of Holocene displacement in CPT correlation lines. Thus,tectonic surface displacement emanating from slip along the B-F is not a constraint to the proposed development. Newport-Inglewood Fault Based on the Alquist-Priolo Map, the surface trace of the N-I is about 0.4 mile south of Parkside Estates. The site is also north of the Special Studies Zone(requiring subsurface investigation)placed along the fault. Tectonic surface rupture resultant from the fault is thus not anticipated on-site. Ground acceleration from a moderate to strong earthquake along the N-I fault was considered in the ground motion analysis for the site,particularly regarding liquefaction potential. PSE used a probabilistic seismic analysis that assessed potential on-site accelerations. The methodology is recommended by the State for determining ground accelerations useful for evaluating liquefaction potential. The derived acceleration was 0.39g,but a more conservative acceleration of 0.5g was used in the PSE liquefaction potential analyses,based on suggestions by the Orange County Technical Advisory Board for a nearby project. That number is higher than the acceleration used by the California Division of Mines and Geology to prepare its Seismic Hazard Zone map of the area; CDMG used 0.45g. Staff believes that the EIR document regarding fault lines is adequate and consistent with accepted geotechnical methodologies and CEQA requirements. Staff Report—9/24/02 -7- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) 4. Flooding (flow of water,including back to back El Nino storms) There are two aspects of the flooding issue, both of which have been answered in the detailed flood insurance study submittals to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which resulted in their issuing the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) dated June 6, 2002. Common to both aspects of the flooding issue is the hydraulic model and the hydraulic model"control" or water surface elevation in Huntington Harbour. The hydraulic model is UNET, One-Dimensional Unsteady Flow through a Full Network of Open Channels, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. UNET is used, for example, by the Corps of Engineers for Mississippi River/New Orleans flood protection and by FEMA for the Talbert Valley flood insurance study. The control for all hydraulic models is extreme ("El Nino")high tide for the most conservative 12-hour long storm runoff duration, which includes wave set up and a 1.84 ft factor of safety. The first aspect is flooding related to flood insurance, represented by the Certified Topographic Work Map. Federal regulations in FEMA 44 CFR 65.10 require that when modeling for flood insurance studies, levees that are not certified or certifiable by FEMA must be considered both to exist and not to exist such as to produce the highest depths of flooding. Furthermore,pump stations must be modeled as operating and not operating such as to produce the highest depths of flooding. These situations are very highly unlikely to occur simultaneously, yet FEMA uses this extremely conservative approach to estimate worst case scenarios. Following the example of the FEMA detailed flood insurance study for Talbert Valley, there are seven hydraulically independent leveed reaches from Bolsa Chica to I-405 freeway. The left levee, right levee, or both levees in each of these seven reaches are assumed to exist, or not to exist, to produce the highest theoretical flooding depths. There are 127 combinations of failure events, each of which could occur three ways,totaling 381 separate hydraulic models. Two additional models, one of which includes all levees in place, are also included in the FEMA submittal. Slater, Marilyn, and Shields pump stations are modeled in both "on"and"off' conditions. The completely"off' condition is more conservative than"throttle-back,"because the pump station is modeled to not exist. The highest depths of flooding for each of the model storage areas for each of the 383 hydraulic models is considered to be the depth of flooding for flood insurance purposes, and is accordingly mapped on the Certified Topographic Work Map. In flood insurance study modeling, no single flood event is mapped,just the highest combined effects of many theoretical flood events and theoretical levee failures. The detailed flood insurance study, summarized by the Certified Topographic Work Map, shows a very conservative representation of the results of FEMA's 100-year(1 percent annual chance) existing condition flooding. The study is also responsive to the question of whether throttle-back conditions have been addressed by looking at the flooding condition when the pumps are not running during peak discharge. The second aspect is flooding related to actual flood protection. That is, levees that are not overtopped are expected to remain in place during an actual flood event. Pump stations are expected to operate. The detailed flood insurance study hydraulic model that includes all levees remaining in place provides a response to analysis of flow of water from extreme storm events. Staff Report—9/24/02 -8- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) For the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg(C05) channel, FEMA required a peak discharge [flow in cubic feet per second (cfs)] of 4,000 cfs, and a total volume of 3,330 acre-feet measured at the Gothard Street stream gage. Because the hydraulic model begins at I-405 freeway, a greater discharge and volume is required at the freeway to account for losses between the freeway and Gothard Street. For the hydraulic model with intact levees, the combined East Garden Grove-Wintersburg(C05) and Ocean View (C06) channel discharge at I-405 is 9,236 cfs. The 100-year(1% annual chance) combined discharge calculated using the Orange County Hydrology Manual, and used in the County Approximate Study, is only 6,650 cfs. The detailed flood insurance study discharge exceeds the 100-year Orange County design discharge. Using Orange County Hydrology Manual calibration data, a combined discharge of 9,630 cfs is approximately equal to a 500-year(0.2% annual chance) flood event. Therefore, the combined C05 and C06 channel discharge of 9,236 cfs is very nearly the equivalent of a 500 year storm event. The engineering design standard for upgrading existing flood control facilities is the 100-year design discharge. The input discharge used in the FEMA hydraulic model that most closely approximates the behavior of the existing and proposed flood control systems downstream of I-405 substantially exceeds the 100-year discharge design standard. The detailed flood insurance submittals to FEMA, which resulted in their issuing the CLOMR dated June 6, 2002 include the combined discharge event that approximates the 500-year(0.2% annual chance) flood event. The water surface elevation in East Garden Grove-Wintersburg (C05) Channel at Slater pump station will increase less than three inches to a water surface elevation less than 8 ft MSL NGVD 29. The County permitted water surface elevation for Slater pump station at this location is 9 ft MSL NGVD 29. The top of levee is over 2 ft. above the extreme water surface elevation. Water surface elevations adjacent to the proposed development site and to the south of the C05 channel remain the same, or are slightly lower, compared to the existing condition. In no case is there an adverse impact to any property. The proposed flood control improvements, the existing flood control structures, and property withstand this higher level or more conservative test. The.Environmental Impact Report is valid, and responsive to additional concerns brought before the Planning Commission, Attachment No. 4.11 — 4.12 contains excerpted response to comments regarding flooding. The impacts of the proposed project will be mitigated by storm drainage and flood control channel improvements to be constructed by the development. There will be no adverse impact to property either to the south of the flood control channel or along the proposed development frontages to the north,northeast, and east as a consequence of this development. As a condition of development,the project proponent is required to make the intersection of Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive passable during a 100-year storm based on future development conditions. New catch basins and storm drains will pick up storm water in the intersection and convey the flow through a new 120-inch storm drain to Slater Channel where it will be pumped into the EGGW flood control channel. In relation to the potential for flooding of the adjacent neighborhoods as a result of development of this project, detailed topography shows that the neighboring property is already one to three feet lower than the. existing elevation of the proposed development site. The neighboring property would be substantially flooded before flooding occurs on the proposed development site. There is no displacement effect possible until the neighboring property is already flooded. If the proposed project were theoretically constructed without the proposed flood control improvements, rising flood waters exceeding the pre- development property elevation would likely be displaced. However, since approval of the project is coupled with the entitlement conditions,the development will not be constructed without the drainage and pumping improvements that effectively mitigate any effect of displacement. Staff Report—9/24/02 -9- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) Additionally, upgrading of the Graham Street System will not prevent nor will it provoke flooding of the EGGW Channel ( For additional information, see "Flooding", Pages 5-136 through 5-138 of the EIR). Analysis has shown that potential overtopping of the EGGW Channel is not a result of the Graham Street Storm Drain System because Graham Street Storm Drain discharges (and the proposed 120-inch drain will discharge) into Slater Channel, which in turn is pumped into the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood control channel. Discharge into EGGW channel is limited by the pumping capacity of Slater pump station. Pumping from the proposed seven pumps would raise the water surface elevation in EGGW channel only a few inches, to a water surface elevation slightly less than 8 ft MSL NGVD 29. This elevation is over a foot below the County permitted water surface elevation of 9 ft MSL NGVD 29. At Slater pump station, there is over 2 ft of freeboard above the County permitted water surface elevation. The potential for overtopping occurs upstream of the site and the Graham Street Bridge, and would not be caused or exacerbated by the subject project. The City has adopted by reference in the Municipal Code regulations set by federal and state agencies as they relate to flooding. Currently, these regulations call for any new development to be built at an elevation, which is one foot above the 100-year base flood elevation as designated on the FEMA maps or flooding elevations established by the best available information. In the case of this development, the City has requested additional regional improvements to be made to the storm drain system to ensure that the intersection of Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive will also meet the 100-year flood protection,which it currently does not have. The City's responsibility is to approve the construction of new development with entitlement requirements that are in conformance with federal, state and local regulations and guidelines. 5. Flood Control capacity Flood control capacity of Slater Channel can be described in two ways: its capacity to convey water, and its capacity to store water. Slater Channel flood control conveyance capacity is directly related to the capacity of Slater pump station to discharge flood water from Slater Channel into East Garden Grove- Wintersburg(C05) Channel. Slater Channel flood control storage capacity is also directly related to the geometry of Slater channel and the water surface elevation in the channel before and during a storm event. With respect to Slater Channel flood control conveyance capacity, the Slater Channel Flood Hazard Mitigation Study prepared by Simons, Li &Associates in June, 2000 reports that Slater Channel can convey 1,310 cubic ft per second(cfs),provided that Slater pump station could discharge that quantity; that is, if Slater pump station had eight pumps with a combined capacity of 1310 cfs. For situations where Slater Channel inflow is greater than pumping capacity, Slater Channel acts more as a retarding basin than a flood control channel, and during the time that inflow exceeds capacity, the forebay water surface elevation would rise. The Mitigation Study based its conclusions on a pump inlet(forebay) water surface elevation of—6 ft MSL NGVD 29. However, pump capacity is a variable that depends on total difference in elevation between forebay elevation and discharge(flap gate) elevation. This was investigated as part of the detailed flood insurance study submittals to the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA), which resulted in their issuing the Conditional Letter of Map Revision(CLOMR) dated June 6,2002. Using pump information and consultation from Johnston Pump Co., if Slater Channel inflow should exceed pump capacity and the forebay water surface elevation should temporarily rise 5 ft to an elevation of—1 ft MSL NGVD 29, the capacity of each 147 cfs pump would increase about 6,000 gallons per minute or 13 cfs, to a new capacity of 160cfs. Individual pump capacity used in the detailed flood insurance study was conservatively set at 147 cfs. Staff Report—9/24/02 -10- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) With respect to Slater Channel flood control storage capacity, the conservative capacity of Slater Channel itself,not including culverts and laterals, between empty and elevation 0 ft MSL NGVD 29 is about 180 acre-feet. According to the Orange County Hydrology Report No. C05SO4-1, the total volume in the 100- year flood hydrograph is 170 acre-feet. If Slater Channel were empty at the beginning of the 100-year runoff event, the entire storm volume could be stored in the channel without pumping, and without overflowing. The operational goal of the system, however, is to maintain Slater pump station forebay and channel water surface elevation as far below"full"as possible,to facilitate street drainage entering the storm drains which flow into Slater Channel. Slater Channel is customarily maintained at elevation-6 ft MSL NGVD 29. The storage volume up to this elevation is about 90 acre-feet, leaving about 90-acre feet to be pumped without having the forebay water surface elevation rise above 0 ft MSL NGVD 29. Each pump is capable of discharging 147 cfs, or about 290 acre-feet per day or 12 acre-feet per hour. One pump could discharge 90 acre-feet in about 7-1/2 hours. Five pumps could do the task in an hour and a half, which is about the total length of the 100-year flood flow hydrograph peak. The proposed Parkside Estates has been conditioned by the City and County to mitigate its impact on local and regional flood control: a peak discharge of 126 cfs, and 2 acre-feet of"new"water. The project proponent will provide new pumps for Slater pump station, and reconstruct Parkside Estates frontage on C05 channel with vertical sheet piling. In the absence of additional pumping, or before pumping begins, 2 acre-feet of"new"water from Parkside Estates would raise Slater pump station forebay elevation from-6.00 ft MSL NGVD 29 to-5.85 ft MSL NGVD 29, in other words an increase of 0.15 ft or less than 2 inches. One additional 147-cfs pump in Slater pump station is more than adequate to discharge the peak flow of q g 126 cfs from Parkside Estates. During peak flows, though, storage effects of Slater Channel become more important. Since one pump is capable of discharging 12 acre-feet per hour, the pump can discharge all of the 2 acre-feet of"new"water in only 10 minutes. Therefore, nearly all the capacity of the two new pumps will be devoted to off-site benefit. Storage effects also apply to the County C05 channel. Widening the channel by construction of the sheet pile system along the levee will add at least 5 acre-feet of additional capacity to the C05 channel volume, more than sufficient to mitigate the 2 acre-feet of"new"water from Parkside Estates. Staff Report—9/24/02 -11- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) 6. City's Master Plan of Storm Drainage (comparison of methods used for '93 (4597 cfs) and '00 (1310 cfs) studies] In 1993, an updated Master Plan of Drainage(MPD) was prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by Williamson & Schmid to revise as needed the previous master plan prepared by L.D. King and Associates in 1979,based upon the construction of new storm drain facilities and new areas of development and changed land uses within the City. Both studies included a watershed boundary of 26.5 square miles, which included portions of the City of Westminster and the City of Fountain Valley. One of the key distinctions of the approach taken in preparing the 1993 MPD, which was also the case for the 1979 MPD, was the exclusion of any existing or proposed retention or detention within the watershed. As noted on page 5 of the 1993 MPD, "all storm drain facilities are analyzed and sized on a free flowing system." It also goes on to state that"In this Master Plan of Drainage (MPD) only the Rational Method model (per 1986 OCEMA Hydrology Manual) is utilized. Since there are no drainage areas greater than one square mile(640 acres) and no detention/retention basins considered(see Section 2.9),the unit hydrograph model was not needed." The net result of this approach overestimated the peak discharges in the watershed by nearly 4 times. The Rational Method was originally developed to estimate peak discharge from small(less than one square mile or 640 acres) of urban and developed areas. As noted in the County's Hydrology Manual, 1986 Ed.,page D-2, "The rational method equation is only applicable where the rainfall intensity(I) can be assumed to be uniformly distributed over the drainage area at a uniform rate throughout the duration of the storm. This assumption only applies fairly well to small areas of less than 640 acres. Beyond this limit,the rainfall distribution may vary considerably from the point values given in rainfall isohyetal maps and the rational method equation should not be used."In recognition of the limitations of this approach,the 1993 MPD states on page 6 that"It should be recognized that this MPD is a conceptual study which identifies facilities needed to effectively control and convey runoff in Huntington Beach based on the City's drainage policies. This plan is not,however, detailed enough for design purposes and additional engineering studies should be completed prior to the design or construction of any facilities." The net result of using the Rational Method on large drainage areas is over estimation of the peak discharge. If this peak discharge is used to derive a runoff volume, the volume would accordingly be overestimated. For this reason,the City of Huntington Beach contracted with Simons, Li& Associates in 2000 to produce an updated and precise hydrology/hydraulics and design study for the Slater Channel and its watershed of 2,706 acres, or 4.2 square miles. The study used the Unit Hydrograph Method for flood routing for a two-day storm. The routing included parks,natural drainage courses, and the detention areas of Huntington Lake, Sully Miller Lake, Talbert Lake and the Shipley Nature Center Lake.The Rational Method was only used to determine the intial time of concentration for each subbasin in the model,of which there were a total of 16 subbasins. The 1993 MPD had estimated the 100-year peak discharge at the Slater pump station to be 4,597 cubic feet per second(cfs) without detention or retention in the lakes and other areas of the watershed,but provided no runoff hydrograph or estimate of total runoff volume needed to properly judge Slater pump station performance in an actual flooding situation. However,the SL&A study more accurately estimates the peak discharge and runoff volume within the watershed at 1,310 cfs,or nearly one quarter of the 1993 MPD estimate. These values are very close to earlier estimates by the Orange County Flood Control District of 1,400 cfs. Staff Report—9/24/02 -12- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) 7. Fire Department response times In response to issues raised at Study Sessions, staff prepared three revised errata pages for the Final EIR addressing Fire Dept. response times. These pages were included in the Sept. 10, 2002 EIR Staff Report. Staff believes that they also address comment letters that have been received. The Planning Commission requested further information regarding response times. The following is a response from the Fire Dept. The General Plan has a Fire and Paramedic goal to "Ensure adequate protection from fire and medical emergencies for Huntington Beach residents and property owners." One of the polices identified to accomplish that goal is to"Locate fire stations in a manner which will enable emergency fire response times to meet a five minute standard,80 percent of the time." For more than twenty five years, the Fire Department has been guided by this goal and policy for strategic planning of station locations. However, it must be understood that this goal allows for 20 percent of emergency responses to exceed the 5 minute standard. The probability of meeting this standard for any given area of the City is based on the response time from a fire station. Fire stations are normally located so their response area has a radius of 1.5 —2 miles. This response area also takes into consideration the expected call load, administrative workload, geographic restrictions, and roadways(planned or present). All of these factors will help determine the best location that serves the greatest number of citizens, ensures adequate response coverage and is fiscally responsible for the community. At the time of an emergency any location within a fire station's first due area may be outside of this response standard because the fire company is not at the station. Actual driving time from a fire station to any location in the city is only representative of what can be expected for response times. The driving time estimates are conservative times as they are conducted in a non-emergency status without signalized intersection preemption, observing stop signs and maybe impacted by traffic flow. A response with warning lights/sirens improves the Dept.'s ability to ensure faster response times during an emergency. The success of the Fire Department in meeting the General Plan goal is based on the actual response times of emergency incidents, not driving time studies. These response times during the emergency can have several factors, other than station location, that contribute to the total time required: 1)the engine location. at the time of the alarm, sometimes further away than the station; 2) the traffic volume,which can affect response at various times of the day; 3) the time of the incident, during normal work hours or at night; and 4) the availability of the first due fire company and required response from another company. The construction and staffing of Station 6 has mitigated the deficiency for a very large number of homes previously outside of the 5 minute response standard goal. But there may be some locations in the area of the Parkside Project that remain outside of this standard,just as other sections of the City remain in a deficient response area. Several driving time runs were made from the proposed relocation site of Station 8 to the intersection of Slater and Graham,these times indicate that the new site will provide response times within 5 minutes. These and prior studies show that response times from three stations to this area of the City will range from 4 minutes 30 seconds to 5 minutes 30 seconds. This provides an exceptional degree of overlapping coverage from these fire stations. The Parkside Project has substantially reduced the impact on Fire Department resources because of the inclusion of a residential sprinkler system. Fewer companies will be committed to handle a structure fire at Parkside Estates,which will reduce the time these companies are unavailable for the surrounding community when multiple emergencies occur at the same time. Staff Report—9/24/02 -13- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) 8. Maximum capacity for Slater Pump Station (what is our limit, has it been exceeded) The Slater pump station was estimated in the 1993 MPD to pump around 697 cfs with the existing five pumps installed, which is approximately 139.4 cfs per pump. This estimate was a conservative number adopted by the study engineer. The recent flood insurance study submitted by the developer and approved by FEMA used a pumping capacity of 147 cfs per pump based upon the 1979 L.D. King MPD,which is closer to actual pump performance. The 697 cfs is significantly less than the estimated capacity of 1400 cfs for the Slater channel. The Simons, Li & Associates study estimated, as did the 1993 MPD, that the station could pump approximately 1,300 cfs with the installation of three more pumps with a 200 cfs capacity in the remaining three bays. Again, this is still well within the original estimates for the design of the station. Incorporating these figures in the analysis,the addition of two pumps to the existing five pumps already installed and operating in the station will increase the volume of water to be pumped,but will still be less than the design 1,400 cfs of the channel. This is also consistent with the earlier Slater Channel and Pump Station report prepared by the County of Orange in 1976. Staff Report—9/24/02 -14- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) 9. Liquefaction A question was raised as to whether the EIR adequately analyzed potential impacts associated with liquefaction. The response below is based on the EIR and Response to Comments. In March, 1997, the state of California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology adopted Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. That document provides definitions, sets objectives, provides suggested analytic methodologies, and offers mitigation alternatives for development of potentially liquefiable sites. The project geotechnical consultant, PSE, has performed site investigation and liquefaction analysis consistent with the state Guidelines, including 26 borings, 17 test pits and 65 Cone Penetrometer soundings. The analysis indicates that potentially liquefiable soils exist at the site. Those potentially liquefiable strata consist of sands and silts that exist in the upper 30 to 35 feet and are interbedded with more cohesive clayey silts and silty clays that are not susceptible to liquefaction. The major peat concentrations are in the upper 5 to 6 feet and thus will necessarily be removed in accomplishing the recommended site overexcavation/recompaction SP 117 guidelines suggest suitable mitigation alternatives may include one or more of the following: 1) Excavation and removal or recompaction of potentially liquefiable soils; 2) In-situ ground densification (e.g., compaction with vibratory probes, dynamic consolidation, compaction piles, blasting densification, compaction grouting); 3) Other types of ground improvement (e.g., permeation grouting, columnar jet grouting, deep mixing, gravel drains or other drains, surcharge pre-loading, structural fills, dewatering); 4) Deep foundations (e.g., piles, piers), that have been designed to accommodate liquefaction effects; 5) Reinforced shallow foundations (e.g., grade beams, combined footings, reinforced or post-tensioned slabs, rigid raft foundations); and 6) Design of the proposed structures or facilities to withstand predicted ground softening and/or predicted vertical and lateral ground displacements to an acceptable level of risk. PSE has designed a mitigation consisting of a combination of alternatives 1, 5, and 6. Summarized, the mitigation will consist of overexcavating and recompacting to sufficient depths to provide a compacted fill mantle over the underlying potentially liquefiable soils. Depths of removal will vary from elevation minus 3 to elevation minus 19. The mantle is designed to provide sufficient thickness of non-liquefiable material such that surface manifestation in the form of fissuring and sand boils is prevented. This is because an important factor influencing whether liquefaction is manifested at the ground surface is the thickness of the mantle of non-liquefiable soil above the liquefiable layers. If the mantle of non-liquefiable soil is sufficiently thick, the uplift force due to the excess pore water pressure will not be large enough to cause a breach in the surface layers even if liquefaction occurs in the deeper deposits. Liquefaction of some of the remaining deeper deposits could occur during a major seismic event in proximity to the site. The analyses indicate that, after overexcavation, recompaction, and placement of design fills, potential settlements of one to four inches could occur. To mitigate this potential, PSE has further recommended that the foundation systems consist of either post-tensioned slab/foundations or mat foundations designed to resist potential differential settlements. Staff believes that the EIR adequately analyzes potential liquefaction impacts and has appropriate mitigation measures supported by accepted geotechnical methods and guidelines. Staff Report—9/24/02 -15- (02sr40 EIR.97-2) Information related to various issues raised in written correspondence Several additional issues have been raised in correspondence either attached to the Planning Commission staff report of September 10, 2002 or in correspondence received after the September l Oth meeting(and attached to this report) that staff believes would benefit from clarification. Staff has consulted with its technical consultants regarding these issues to provide the following information, organized by issue area. ♦ Cultural Resources On September 1 lth, the Planning Department received a letter from the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council(Attachment No. 5). In response to the correspondence the following information from the EIR is summarized below. Page 5-165 of the EIR discusses the CA-ORA-83 site and indicates that a majority of this archaeological site is located off the project property. Page 5-165 goes on to acknowledge the following information regarding ancestral remains of the ORA-83 site, "Other new discoveries are a human burial component at the site. Mason (OCEMA, 1996: 4.12-16-18), concludes that no total estimate of burials is possible, given present information and the fragmentary nature of the finds. He further concludes that a count of at least 19 individuals is possible, and that most if not all represent secondary reburials." Page 5-171 of the EIR provides an evaluation of archaeological site significance based on three significance criteria. After a detailed comparative analysis using volumes of prior studies and the project's archaeological evaluation, the EIR archeological assessment concludes that the portion of the CA-ORA-83 ite, which is contained by the Shea Homes project, is only of moderate significance, specifically in relation to other better studied portions of the same archaeological site. Although this portion of CA-ORA-83 was concluded to be of moderate significance,the proposed project will not impact any portion of this site. All burials known to exist at the ORA-83 are on the top of the mesa, well away from the Shea property, and the boundaries of the proposed development down on the flats below the mesa were contracted away from the toe of the slope specifically so as to avoid any part of the ORA-83 site, thereby preserving and protecting it. Further CA-ORA-1308 and 1309 were found to be of minimal and of very low significance because of their lack of artifacts, extremely disturbed state, and in the case of ORA-1308, the extreme admixture of modern garbage within the deposit. Mitigation measures 1-3 do require preparation of a cultural resource management plan be developed in consultation with appropriate Native American organizations should the subsurface test results of the CA-ORA-1308 and 1309 determine that a plan is necessary. Although not required by CEQA based on the conclusions of the EIR, the Planning Commission could condition the project to have a Gabrielino Tongva Indian monitor the implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 (i.e., subsurface testing for ORA-1308 and 1309). This condition would be associated with the staff report for the Tentative Tract Maps. Specifically the Planning Commission could amend Condition No. 5.kk on the Tentative Tract Map, which is located on Attachment No. 1.14 of that staff report from September loth ♦ Transportation/Circulation In response to a question regarding the adequacy of the traffic study conducted in 1997 given the new Home Depot, staff contacted the traffic consultant. The consultant indicated that there is no unaccounted for impact from the Home Depot now located at Goldenwest and Warner for two reasons: "l) Shopping trips are already factored into trips generated from residences. A new retail Staff Report—9/24/02 -16- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) business may relocate a shopping trip from one travel corridor to another but not create a new trip from a residence; and 2) The Home Depot previously was located at Goldenwest and Edinger,which is in the same travel corridor for Graham Street." Staff believes that the traffic study is adequate and appropriately analyzes impacts associated with the project. Moreover, the traffic study is augmented by the additional traffic counts conducted on September 4f and 5 h that were presented to the Planning Commission on September 10th. These data provide verification that traffic volumes in the area have not significantly changed since the original report was prepared. Also,the new data show that the cumulative analysis contained in the March 21, 2001 report overestimated traffic volumes, and the conclusions reached and recommended mitigation measures contained in the March 21, 2001 report are still valid and no additional mitigation measures are required. ♦ Noise In response to a question regarding the possibility of increased noise associated with installation of a traffic signal at the project entry on Graham Street, staff contacted the noise consultant, Giroux& Associates. Mr. Giroux indicated that"noise measurements at numerous intersections have found that the speed reduction associated with signalization balances any acceleration effects unless there are very high percentages of trucks on the affected streets. A typical accelerating passenger car at slow initial speed is no louder than the same vehicle moving at free-flow traffic speed. Installation of traffic signals is considered a"non-Type I"project under federal noise analysis requirements unless the signal is on a truck route,"which this segment of Graham is not. Staff would also note that there are traffic signals in close proximity to residential neighborhoods throughout the City that do not result in noise complaints or compatibility issues. In conclusion,there are no significant noise implications from installing a traffic signal at the proposed location. SUMMARY: Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 serves as an informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Parkside Estates project, alternatives which minimize those impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify EIR No. 97-2 because: ■ The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and ■ Identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 1574 (Final EIR No. 97-2) 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 10, 2002 (under separate cover—not attached) 3. Coastal Commission correspondence and Associated Water Quality Memoranda 4. Excerpted Response to Comments 5. Cultural Resources Letter SH:MBB:rl Staff Report—9/24/02 -17- (02sr40 EIR 97-2) SEP-10-2002 TUE 09:5Z ID:CA COASTAL TEL:562 590 5084 P:02 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,davemor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area office 200 Oceangale.Suits 1000 Long Beach,CA 90802-4302 i (562)590-5071 September 9, 2002 t Mary Beth Broeren Planning Department City of Huntington Beach City Hail 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92848.2742 RE: Environmental Impact Report 97-2 (Parkside Estates) Dear Ms. Broeren: The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department will be acting on the Shea Homes development proposal to construct 171 residential units by Graham Street adjacent to the Wintersburg flood control channel on September 10, 2002, Commission staff requests that the Planning Commission not approve the proposed development. Specifically, the Commission's Water Quality Unit believes that the proposed Water Quality Plan is based on faulty assumptions and analysis. Additionally, Commission staff has not had an opportunity to review, through the EIR process, new information presented as an addendum to the Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan (Rivertech, 1998 and 2002). Prior to certification of the i EIR, the flaws of the proposed Water Quality Plan should be corrected, Attached to this letter is the memorandum from the Commission's Water Quality Unit, which I provides greater detail on our concerns. Please note, that this letter is specific to water quality and that many Coastal Act concerns discussed in our prior letters remain. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. i Sin erely, Stephen Rynas, AICP Orange County Area Supervisor -- HotLatters%City of Huntington aeach%ruarenOl.dOc 1 f { SEP-10-2002 TUE M 52 I M CA COASTAL TEL:SS2 SSO S084 P:03 i I ' f STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE R63OURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,GOvsANoA CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ASCLNA 45 FREMONT. SUITE 2000 ".,SAN FRANCISC0, CA 94105.2219 MICE ANb TOO 1415)004.5200 AX 1 415) 904-5400 September 10, 2002 TO: Steve Rynas, Long Beach FROM: Janna Shackeroff,Water Quality Unit SUBJECT: Refutation of the Water Quality Analysis and Findings of"Insignificance with Mitigation" in the Parkside Estates EIR: An Analysis of the July 2002 Response to Comments to Final EIR;the Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan, prepared by Rivertech, Inc, December 1998; and Addendum to Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan, prepared by Rivertech, Inc, February 2002. 1. Introduction: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Final EIR for the Parkside Estates (Shea Homes)development in the City of Huntington Beach, In a letter dated July 31, 2001, Coastal Commission staff raised the issue of potential water quality impacts to coastal waters and resources by the proposed development. The water quality staff of the California Coastal Commission has reviewed the Response to i Comments (2002)to the Final EIR, the February 2002 Addendum to the Water Duality Control Plan, and all relevant water quality documents in the Final EIR. ! Unfortunately, our concerns pertaining to water quality were not addressed in the Response to Comments nor the new Information in the February 2002 Addendum to the Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan (Rivertech, 1998 and 2002) (hereafter referred to as "Water Quality Plan"). Moreover, the Water Quality Plan and the water quality determination in the Final EIR are based on faulty assumptions and analyses. Coastal Commission staff has concerns about the project's impact on coastal resources and water quality, I We respectfully ask that the Huntington Beach Planning Commission deny certification of the Parkside Estates EIR as it is currently written. Prior to certification of the EIR, the flaws in the Water Quality Plan should be corrected, and the entire water quality mitigation plan for the development should to be reassessed and redesigned to ! adequately address water quality concerns. III. Documents Reviewed This memorandum constitutes California Coastal Commission staffs analysis of the potential impacts to water quality by the proposed Parkside Estates, as discussed in the Final EIR and Response to Comments. This memorandum does not address any issues other than water quality. The primary documents upon which this analysis was based include the following; I I i _--- -- — - _3.2. SEP-10-2002 TUE 09:S2 ID:CA COASTAL TELtS62 S90 SOB4 P:04 Comments on parkside Estates Response to Comments to Final EIR Page 2 l ' ! 1. Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan, prepared by Rivertech, Inc, December 1998, 2. Addendum to Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan, prepared by Rivertech, Inc, February 2002, I 3. Comment Letters on the New Alternatives to the DEIR, 4. Response to Comments (in particular, CCC#2-10, page 4-64; OCPD#2-6, pages 4-74 to 4.75; MHa-6, page 3-99; OCPD-12&13. pages 3-87 to 3-88). i III. Basic Components of a Water Quality Management Plan for a New Residential Development Near Sensitive Resources In order to fully address the issues raised by the water quality analysis for Parkelde Estates, it is necessary to establish what the broad nonpoint source pollution prevention community regards as basic components of a water quality management plan for large residential subdivisions. Typically, urban residential areas generate a wide array of pollutants and significant pollutant loads; runoff usually includes such pollutants as i pesticides and synthetic organic pollutants; nutrients; bacteria; heavy metals; oil, grease, gasoline, and other automotive fluids; sediments; trash and particulate debris; oxygen-demanding substances; and variety of other contaminants. f `r' It is widely recognized in water quality literature that management of urban runoff that successful water quality management, particularly in a new development in which the issues can be incorporated from the primary stages of planning, integrates a three- pronged approach. Water quality management should include each of these three components: 1) Site Design standards 2) Source Control Best Management Practices 3) Structural Treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs).t ! Site design varies significantly from one site to the next, and it is an often overlooked, but nonetheless critical, component of pollution prevention. For example, water quality site design principles can include such measures as minimizing impervious surfaces, promoting infiltration, using porous pavements, designing infiltration trenches into street medians, integrating vegetated swales and biological treatment systems Into the common landscaping or along streets and parking lots, using shared driveways, minimizing footprints of buildings, and even designing roadways to encourage public ! transportation and thus lessen vehicle miles traveled. Source control measures prevent pollutants from being released In the first place. Nonpoint source pollution education,efficient irrigation practices, planting native vegetation, and minimizing the use of pesticides and fertilizers are some of the more ' Information can be found at Center for Watershed Protection httu://wwW-cwD ora/and US EPA Nonpoint Source Program htto:Urtay.eoa.aov/oWgX/nps/urb na htmi . SEP-10-2002 TUE MiS3 IO:CA COASTAL TEL:562 590 5084 P:05 Continents on Parkside Estates Response to Comments to Final EIR Page 3 common source control BMPs. Source control measures should target both pollution prevention and reducing nuisance flows. Structural treatment BMPs target the removal of pollutants that are Inevitably and i sometimes unavoidably introduced into runoff. In a residential development, a wide array of pollutants can be entrained in runoff, thus residential developments typically employ treatment trains—an extensive network of structural BMPs, usually incorporating several different types of BMPs that together will address all of the pollutants In urban runoff. Treatment trains include multiple steps of treatment, filtration, and infiltration, as is appropriate in each circumstance.2 Treatment BMPs are those in which runoff is routed through filter media, like charcoal, resin beads, sand, or a manufactured media designed to adsorb particular pollutants, or through a biological system like constructed wetlands that remove pollutants through phytoremediation. These processes are necessary to deal with the entire range of pollutants that will be I generated by a residential development. IV, Flaws In the Water Quality Analysis of the Parkside Estates Final EIR I The 1998 and 2002 Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan ("Water Quality Plan")contains multiple fundamental flaws. Because the Final EIR based its conclusion of insignificant water quality Impacts on the Water Quality Plan's analysis, the Final EIR conclusion Is insufficient as currently written. The flaws are substantial enough that we recommend the Huntington Beach Planning ' Commission reject certification of the Final EIR as currently proposed. i A. The proposed water quality mititaation will not remove the range of pollutants nor the amount of Ilgro utants,generated by an urban development. Parkside Estate'${proposed use of CDS Units as the principal means of water tauality treatment measure is not sufficient to protect coastal water quality, The Water Quality Plan proposes Stoma Drain Inserts and Continuous Deflection Separation systems (CDS Units)as the sole structural treatment j BMPs. The use of these two devices without further filtration or treatment is Insufficient to mitigate the potential impacts to water quality from this site. These technologies will remove some amount of trash and sediments from runoff, but they will not significantly reduce bacteria, nutrients, pesticides and other synthetic organic pollutants, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, automotive fluids, and the wide array of other urban pollutants. Storm drain inserts are typically used as the initial step in removing trash and some particulate matter,oils and greases. Storm drain inserts fit into storm drain inlets and contain trash racks and a small amount of filter media to remove sediments and some dissolved constituents. Many developments of similar scale to the Parkside Estates utilize storm drain inserts as the first ,:..., stage in an extensive network of treatment technologies (a development- t The extremely high water table precludes the use of infiltration BMPs on this site. i SEP-10-2002 TUE 08iSS IM CA COASTAL TELiS62 SSe S084 P-06 Comments on Parkside restates Response to Comments to Final Elk Page 4 ! i specific array of swales, vegetated treatment systems, sand filters, constructed wetlands, and treatment devices like Stormwater Management's StormFilter). In practice, storm drain inserts work best in small parking lots or very small development sites. One storm drain insert per entire residential block in Parkside would provide only pre-screening for large particulates and a very small percent of oils and grease in the runoff. Essentially, under the current design for Parkside Estates, CDS Units would provide the principal treatment of runoff from the development. ! CDS Units primarily remove trash and coarse-grained sediments but do not remove any other urban pollutants to any significant degree. By relying solely on CDS Units, the runoff from this development will still contain significant levels of bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, oil, grease, gasoline,fine-grained sediments, synthetic organic pollutants, and other urban pollutants, Industry data suggests that CDS Units can remove 99% of trash under certain circumstances,' and they have been shown to remove up to 70% of total suspended solids when the total concentrations exceed 75 mg/L. However, below 75 mg/L. CDS Units may achieve 0% removal of TSS.° No data suggests that CDS Units remove 90% of all urban runoff pollutants, as is stated in the Rivertech Reports (1998 and 2002). Other than trash and sediments, the CDS Unit-type technology removes only those pollutants that - are adhered to the trash and coarse-grained sediments that are screened by this technology. Therefore, the technology is shown to be highly effective at removing trash and particulate debris; moderately effective with sediments (coarse-grained sediments are preferentially removed and fine-grained sediments like clays and slits are the least likely to be removed); and i telativeiy ineffective at removing bacteria, pesticides, nutrients, petroleum hydrocarbons, automotive fluids, and other urban contaminants. I Therefore, two major flaws in the Parkside Estates Water Quality Analysis come to light. First, the Water(Quality Plan, and thus the Final EIR, is in error i claiming that the proposed mitigation will remove all pollutants in urban runoff. ' In fact, the proposed treatments will not remove the wide range of pollutants, including bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and a wide array of other toxic pollutants will still be discharged to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel, and ultimately to coastal waters. As proposed, entire categories of pollutants are not being addressed, and at a minimum, a revised water quality plan should address all categories of ! pollutants (e.g. bacteria, pesticides, nutrients, etc.) 1 http:/Iwww.epa oov/realonOl/steward/ceitts/atormwater/t hs/contdeflective.htmi `Investigation of Structural Control Measures for New Development, Final Report. November 1999, Prepared by Lary Walker and Associates,Inc.for Sacramento Stormwater Management Program,P.45. i I SEP-10-2002 TUE 0S%S4 ID:CA COASTAL TEL:562 5S0 5084 P:07 I i Comments on Parkside Estates Response to Comments to Final EIR Page 5 Second, the Water Quality Plan errs In Its calculations of the pollutant loads that will be removed from runoff. The Water Quality Plan assumes that CDS Units would remove 90% of all urban runoff pollutants generated by this development, and this number is used in the primary calculations of post- development water quality. These calculations of expected pollutant loads were used to demonstrate the robustness of the proposed mitigation and finally to conclude that this development would not have significant impacts on coastal water quality. As established in preceding paragraphs, the 90% estimation may only be used in relation to trash levels, and no other urban pollutant. Therefore, the EIR cannot conclude there will be no significant impact to water quality based i on these calculations, given that their major assumptions are flawed. B. The undeveloped site is not a source of Rgllutlon to coastal waters j The Parkside Estates site is currently an undeveloped parcel and is not a source of nonpoint source pollution (i.e.there currently Is no polluted runoff discharged from the site). Therefore, by converting this open parcel of land I into a residential subdivision, any amount of polluted runoff, no matter how well- or poorly-filtered it may be,will exceed pollutant contribution from the baseline conditions. i The Final EIR suggests that because the development proposes to filter I runoff from both this site and the adjacent, unrelated residential development, there will be an area-wide improvement in water quality. The EIR estimates Ipollutant loads would be 45% less than existing levels. Based on the current water quality plan, claims of area-wide reductions in polluted runoff cannot be supported. Primarily, as established above, the Undeveloped Parkside Estate site is not a source of polluted runoff. The site In question totals approximately 50 acres, and the adjacent development, which will be routed through CDS Units, totals approximately 21 acres. The conclusion that there will be an area-wide reduction In pollutant loads is based upon the assumption of a 90% removal efficiency of all urban pollutants. The Final EIR should acknowledge that polluted runoff from the Parkside Estates, in fact, will increase over existing conditions, Treatment of runoff from the adjacent neighborhood can help offset increases in polluted runoff, but the EIR exaggerates that offset because of the faulty assumptions of CDS Units. As proposed, there will be an increase in urban runoff as a result of this development. i i SEP-10-2002 TUE 09:54 MCA COASTAL TEL:562 S80 S084 P:08 Comments on Parkside Estates Response to Comments to Final EIR Page 6 I C. impacts to Huntington Harbor jAccordingly, since it has been established that runoff may be measurably more impaired than under existing conditions, the impact to Huntington Harbor must be considered. The Final EIR does not discuss adequately the fact that runoff ultimately is discharged into Huntington Harbor,a 303(d)-listed water body, despite multiple requests from comment letters to address this issue. Runoff from the development ultimately must pass through Huntington Harbor to reach the Pacific Ocean, Huntington Harbor is on the State Water Resources Control Board's 303(d)list of Impaired water bodies for the following pollutants: metals (from Urban Runoff, Storm Sewers, and Boatyards), pathogens (from Urban-Runoff, Storm Sewers), and pesticides (from Urban Runoff and Storm Sewers). As an impaired water body, Huntington Harbor Is afforded an especially high level of protection;thus, every measure to limit the introduction of these pollutants to its waters should I be taken. D. Connectivity with and Impa, s to Bolsa Chica Wetlands I _ Similarly, since it has been established that runoff may be measurably more impaired than in existing conditions, the impact to Balsa Chica must be ' considered. While the Final EIR contends that Bolsa Chica wetlands would i not be impacted by water quality impairments from the Parkside Estates, Coastal Commission staff maintains this statement is Incorrect, Tho Rocponco to Comments states that the EGGW Channel *has completely severed the surface and shallow subsurface hydrological and terrestrial connection between the project site and the Balsa 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."s We believe this to be In error, Although the EEGW Channel does not have a direct flow to the Bolsa Chica wetlands,the channel's outlet is within meters of the only tidal Inlet to j the Department of Fish and Game Balsa Chica reserve. Runoff from Parkside Estates would be pumped through the Slater Pump Station and discharged into Slater Channel,which discharges almost i -immediately into the East Garden Drove Wintersburg Channel (EGGW). A concrete-lined levy, the EGGW channel is a highly polluted urban drainage channel that currently receives stormwater and nuisance flows from many square miles of urban landscape, The EGGW outlet discharges into Outer Bolsa Bay,which is a small water body connecting the Southern end of Huntington Harbor and the DFG Balsa Chica reserve. Water in Outer Bolsa ' Bay, which contains all stormwater and nuisance flows from the EGGW Is Response to Comments,Page 4.64. i "7 SEP-10-2002 TUE 09:SS ID:CA COASTAL TEL:S62 S90 5064 P:09 fComments on Parkside Estates Response to Comments to Final EIR Page 7 channel, may pass through tide gates into the Bolsa Chica reserve, it may also pass through a culvert under Warner Avenue and into Huntington Harbor. E. Use of the term "Low Flow Diversion" The Rivertech Report as well as the Response to Comments refers to a "Proposed First Flush and Low Flow Diversion"of runoff in the Parkside Estates. The term 'low flow diversion," as used In the report is a misnomer; the EIR uses it to describe the need to pump runoff to the Slater drainage channel in the dry weather season to prevent flooding of the streets in the summer. In general, however, the term "low flow diversion"refers to the diversion of low flow runoff (the amount of runoff up to a certain rate runoff,typically that which flows in dry weather seasons)through a wastewater treatment facility to be treated prior to being discharged in the ocean. Defining a water conveyance action as a low flow diversion,without it actually being thus, may have left some reviewers with an Inaccurate perception of the projects design. Low flow diversions of urban runoff to wastewater treatment plants have been highly publicized and lauded as an Immediate fix for beach closures—a high profile issue In Huntington Beach. Therefore, it Is Imperative ' to clarify the use of the term 'low flow diversion,"or perhaps avoid the use this term at all. i Ar @'^aCHN! °'NT kit I 34- RIVERTECH INC MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Beth Broeren, City of Huntington Beach FROM: Hasan Nouri,Rivertech Inc. DATE: September 10, 2002 SUBJECT: Responses to Comments by the California Coastal Commission on Parkside Estates"Conceptual"Water Quality Control Plan I have just received the comments by the State of California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) dated September 9, 2002 on the Parkside Estates Water Quality Control Plan. Given the time constraints I will attempt to provide you with my responses to the best of my ability. We appreciate the information provided to us by the staff of the Coastal Commission on our 1998 Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan(1998 Report) and the 2002 Addendum. The comments are useful and will be integrated in our future plans. However, the following points must be mentioned In 1998 Rivertech Inc. at the request of Shea Homes provided numerical analysis of pollutant loads from Parkside Estates under Existing and Developed Conditions. None of the planned residential developments at that time provided this level of detail. In fact, CEQA documents typically only provide the general level of analysis provided on pages 5-138, 5-141 through 5-142 of the EIR including mitigation measures 2 and 3 (recommended by RWQCB) which require the applicant comply with NPDES requirements and obtain the necessary permits. The 1998 report was only conceptual and at that time the alternatives using innovative technology to treat urban runoff was limited. Continuous Deflection Separation (CDS) was a (state of the art) device at the time. In 1998 the CDS manufacturer had advised us that the system was capable of removing up to 90% of the pollutants. Research during the past 4 years on CDS units shows that the efficiency of the equipment to remove pollutants is more limited. Realizing this fact about CDS, our 2002 Addendum identifies within the section of Best Management Practices (BMPs) including a treatment train which will reduce the water quality impacts to less than significant levels. As required by the City conditions,prior to the issuance of grading permits, we will prepare an Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) that will describe and identify that treatment train. Consistent with the requirements of the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB-SR) the URMP will include numerical analysis of pollutant loads that would be contributed under existing and developed conditions. The URMP will also identify and describe mitigation measures that would reduce .pollutant loads to insignificant levels. Unfortunately, the comments by the Coastal Commission make no mention of the URMP and our future plans. Also, it should be noted that the analysis included in the 1998 report assumes that only the 21.8 acres of existing development contributes urban pollutants to the Slater Channel and not the undeveloped Parkside 23332 Mill Creek Drive,Suite 210, Laguna Hills, CA USA, 92653 Tel:(949)586-6127 Fax(949)457-6356 wwwAvertec.com Estates area. The staff of the Coastal Commission has misinterpreted this information and understands that urban pollutant loads calculated under Existing Conditions is from an area that includes the existing development of 21.8 acres as well as the undeveloped Parkside Estates site. In addition to the BMPs and the treatment train described in Section 3 of our 2002 Addendum we are currently investigating the use of sand filters for treating urban runoff from the planned Parkside Estates. After the implementation of URMP we are confident that the requirements of the RWQCB-SR and the Coastal Commission will be satisfied. STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate,Suite 1000 r� Long Beach,CA 90802-4302 (562)590-5071 September 10, 2002 Mary Beth Broeren ,ECE Planning Department sEP 12 2002 City of Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2702 RE: Environmental Impact Report 97-2 (Parkside Estates) Dear Ms. Broeren: Thank for the opportunity to review the comments by Hasan Nouri of Rivertech, Inc. on our water quality letter of September 9, 2002 for the Parkside Estates EIR (EIR). Our comments on the EIR were based on the data and analysis of the EIR itself. As Mr. Nouri noted, additional research on the performance of water treatment methods since 1998 has documented the need for a future Urban Runoff Management Plan that will describe and identify the water quality treatment plan. In his letter, Mr. Nouri confirmed that the proposed structural BMPs in the EIR would not be sufficient on their own to mitigate impacts to water quality. We were aware that a future Urban Runoff Management Plan would be developed, but the general concept of the water quality mitigation plan proposed in the EIR did not indicate that the future plans would include other, more protective BMPs. Commission staff looks forward to the opportunity to work with the City's water quality staff to develop such a plan which will protect and enhance water quality and the biological integrity of Outer Bolsa Bay and Huntington Harbour. Sinc rely, Stephen Rynas, AICP Orange County Area Supervisor H:\Letters\City of Huntington Beach\Broeren02.doc /1®� i'ECH INCC MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Beth Broeren, City of Huntington Beach FROM: Hasan Nouri,Rivertech Inc. DATE: September 17, 2002 SUBJECT: Explanation of Conceptual Plans described in Rivertech's 1998 and 2002 reports and responses to the Coastal Commission's comments. This Memorandum in addition to the Memorandum submitted to you on September 10, 2002 respond to the concerns expressed by the State of California, Coastal Commission(Commission) in their letter of September 9, 2002: Previous to these memorandums we have prepared the following reports: • Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan, Prepared by Rivertech Inc., December 1998 • Addendum to Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan, Prepared by Rivertech Inc.,February 2002. First, please note that both reports are "conceptual" levels of studies. The purpose of the reports was to provide project guidance to mitigate the water quality impacts of the planned Parkside Estates development. In 1998,none of the planned residential developments in Orange County at that time provided that level of detail. In fact, CEQA documents typically only provide the general level of analysis provided on pages 5-138, 5-141 through 5-142 of the EIR including mitigation measures 2 and 3 (recommended by RWQCB) which require the applicant comply with NPDES requirements and obtain the necessary permits Second, Rivertech Inc. agrees with the staff of the Commission that urban runoff produced by residential developments usually contain such pollutants as pesticides and synthetic organic pollutants;nutrients; bacteria;heavy metals; oil, grease,gasoline, and other automotive fluids; sediments;trash and particulate debris;oxygen demanding substances; and variety of other contaminants. To control the discharge of these pollutants to the downstream receiving waters the 2002 Addendum identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) including a treatment train, which will reduce the water quality impacts to less than significant levels. As required by the City conditions,prior to the issuance of grading permits,we will prepare an Urban Runoff Management Plan(URMP) that will describe and identify that treatment train. In addition, the URMP will recommend Site Design Standards as well as Source Control BMPs. The URMP will review a wide variety of design and treatment modalities and will create a treatment train capable of achieving regulatory compliance. Among the design and treatment modalities the applicant will consider are the following: 23332 Mill Creek Drive,Suite 210,Laguna Hills, CA USA, 92653 Tel;(949)586-6127 Fax(949)457-6356 www.rivertec.com 1-Continuous Deflection Separation (CDS): The CDS unit is highly effective in removing sediments, trash and debris from urban runoff. In a study conducted for stormwater flow in Brevard County, Florida by the CDS Technologies the following removal rates of pollutants were achieved. TABLE 1 CDS Constituent Removal Efficiencies in Percent Storm No. BOD COD TSS Phosphorus 1 18 27 50 29 2 32 25 50 27 3 63 53 70 30 In a study performed by Professor Michael Stenstrom, Professor of Environmental Engineering at UCLA (CDS Performance Review Manual —Table 6) it is shown that the CDS unit is 80 to 90% effective in the removal of free oil/hydrocarbons from urban runoff. In addition, since the CDS unit is a highly effective liquid/solid separator,pollutants that are attached to sediments will be removed to some degree. However, many pollutants that are adsorbed to the fine sediment particles will escape the CDS unit. Therefore, additional BMPs must be employed in the planned Parkside Estates. A CDS unit is currently in operation in the City of Huntington Beach within a project named "The Boardwalk". The project, being a residential development, was developed by PLC of Newport Beach. The CDS unit was designed for the first flush wet weather flow. The dry weather flow, however, after being screened through the CDS unit is diverted to the sanitary sewer line. 2-StormFilter: This system manufactured by Stormwater Management consists of vertical cylinder with media of various types placed in the cylinder. Water enters laterally through the filter, enters a vertical cylinder well which exits to an underdrain system. Due to limited capacity application of this system in the Parkside Estates will require surface or underground storage areas. The URMP will investigate appropriate locations within the Parkside Estates where StormFilters can be used. Studies' have shown the following efficiencies in removing pollutants from urban runoff by this system. TABLE 2 Constituent Removal Efficiencies by StormFilter in Percent Investigator TSS Cu Pb Zn O& G COD TPH Stormwater, 92 65 82 83 81 70 84 1994 Lief, 1998 43 33 50 29 Woodward, 74/69 1998 Final Report;Investigation of Structural Control Measures for New Development;Prepared for Sacramento Stormwater management Program;Prepared by Larry Walker Associates,Inc,November 1999. 7 SGi1 t ' ;y A F—2, away 3-Grass Swales: Grass Swales are channels having mild slopes and covered with grass. Runoff is directed to the grass swales before discharging into storm drains. Within the Grass Swales treatment takes place through a variety of physical, chemical and biological mechanisms as the runoff flows to and along the Grass Swale. Treatment efficiency is largely a function of depth of flow relative to grass height and velocity of flow. Table 3 lists the performance data of Grass Swales. TABLE 3 Percent Removal of Pollutants by Grass Swales Data Source/ TSS Cu Pb Zn O&G Other Reference Khan, 1992 83 46 67 63 75 TP-29; FC-(70) Khan, 1992 72 10 25 15 49 TP-50;FC-64 Goldberg, 1993 68 42 62 TN-31;TP-4.5 21 King, 1995 67 -35 6 -3 TP-39 Barrett, 1998 87, 85 17,41 91, 75 TOC-51,53 FC-ne Schueler, 81 56 50 69 TN-52; TP-17; 199 a Cr-3 7 Schueler, 87 89 90 90 TN-84; TP-83; 1994(a) Cr-88 Schueler, 65 28 41-55 49 TKN-17; TP- 1994 41• Cr 12-16 Schueler, -85 14 18-92 47 TKN-9; TP-12 1994 Cr, 22-17 Schueler, 98 62-67 67-94 81 TKN-48;TP-18 1994 Cr 51-61 Evans, 1994 60 66 62 94 TP-40 0 82 4-Sand Filters: Sand filters within Parkside Estates may be constructed as underground facilities. In general, sand filters are feasible at locations where space is limited for the construction of detention or retention basins. Sand filters are excellent BMPs for the removal of bacteria. Table 4 shows the efficiency of sand filters in removing pollutants as well as bacteria from urban runoff. Removal efficiencies shown in Table 4 are based on data collected from 13 monitoring studies. Proper operation of filter systems such as sand filters requires frequent maintenance program. Urbonas et of (1997) found that the hydraulic conveyance of a sand filter decreased from 3 feet- 2 EPA Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management Practices,EPA-821-R-99-012,August 1999 3 per-hour per-square-foot of filter area to less than 0.05 feet-per-hour after only several storms. Therefore, use of sand filters within Parkside Estates will require an efficient maintenance program. In order to provide treatment for the first flush as well as dry weather flow sand filters must be placed off-line. This would require the construction of a diversion structure (Smart Box) upstream of sand filters to bypass stormwater in excess of the first flush flow. TABLE 4 Pollutant Removal Efficiency of Sand Filters in Percent Median or Range of Removal Average ercent Number of Parameter Removal Observations Efficiency Low High (percent) Soluble Phosphorus -31 -37 -25 2 Total Phosphorus 45 -25 80 15 Ammonia-Nitrogen 68 43 94 4 Nitrate -13 -100 27 13 Organic Nitrogen 28 0 56 2 Total Nitrogen 32 13 71 9 Suspended Solids 81 8 98 15 Bacteria 37 36 83 5 Organic carbon 57 10 99 11 Cadmium 26 N/A N/A 1 Chromium 54 47 61 2 Copper 34 22 84 9 Lead 71 -16 89 11 Zinc 69 33 91 15 Using the above structural and nonstructural BMPs and the pollutant removal rates indicated in Tables 1 through 4 as well as the EPA's National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) data the URMP will evaluate the pollutant loads under Existing and Developed Conditions. As indicated in Rivertech Inc.'s 1998 and 2002 reports the URMP will be based on treating urban runoff from the planned Parkside Estates development as well as an existing development having a drainage area of 21.8 acres. The number and size of the BMPs will be selected such that pollutant loads to the receiving waters under Developed Condition will be less than Existing. 4 _ IMPACTS TO RECEIVING WATERS Runoff from the planned Parkside Estates will be released into the Slater Channel from where it will be pumped to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (EGGWC) which discharges into Bolsa Bay. Bolsa Bay in turn discharges into Huntington Harbor. Through tidal action and oceanic processes it is possible for the runoff from the Bolsa Bay to reach the Bolsa Chica Reserve when the tide gates are open. The State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board-Santa Ana Region (RWQCB-SR) has listed Huntington Harbor as an impaired body of water but not the EGGWC. However, it must be mentioned that EGGWC is a source of impairment. Impairment exists when a surface water body does not meet the water quality standards assigned to it. In other words, impairment can exist if numeric or narrative water quality objectives are not met, or if beneficial uses are not being attained. Impaired waters are made public in accordance with CWA Section 303(d). The regulatory response to a 303(d) listing is to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)for the water body and the pollutants causing impairment. TMDLs have not yet been established for Huntington Harbor or EGGWC. According to RWQCB-SR TMDLs for Huntington Harbor is tentatively scheduled to begin in 2007. Realizing the sensitivities and constraints of the water bodies that receive runoff from the planned Parkside Estates, Rivertech's URMP will identify solutions that will not degrade the quality of receiving waters as compared to existing. This can be achieved by recommending structural and nonstructural BMPs that would be integrated with the planned development. These BMPs will treat urban runoff not only from the planned development but also from an existing development having a,drainage area of 21.8 acres situated to the northwest of the Parkside Estates. The level of bacteria in EGGWC and Huntington Harbor, which is a major concern, after the planned Parkside Estates development should be less than existing. Because the drainage area from Parkside Estates is very small as compared to that draining to EGGWC,the improvement in water quality in EGGWC will not be significant. LOW FLOW DIVERSION In managing stormwater and urban runoff from the planned Parkside Estates three different types of . flow are classified: • Storm Flow: Storm flow discharges to Slater Channel by,gravity when flap gates at Slater Channel are open. • First Flush Flow: A portion of this flow may be released by gravity while the remainder might be pumped to Slater Channel. The proportions of gravity and pumped flows will depend on upstream hydraulic conditions as well as tailwater elevation in the Slater Channel. All of the First Flush Flow will receive treatment before discharging to the Slater Channel. • Low Flow or Dry Weather Flow: The majority of this type of flow may have to be pumped to Slater Channel because the flap gates during non-storm periods may be closed. All of this type of flow will also receive treatment before discharging into the Slater Channel. , I hope my two memorandums have responded to the concerns expressed by the Commission staff. If you have any questions or require further information please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 586-6127 or on my mobile telephone which is (949)233-8286. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXCERPTED RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM EIR NO. 9'7-2 Fault Lines The following information is excerpted from the Response to Comments for EIR No. 97-2, specifically, response BW-2 (pages 3-35 to 3-38). According to the project geotechnical consultant, PSE (1998; Appendix E of EIR) discussed briefly both the Newport-Inglewood (N-I) fault zone and the Bolsa-Fairview fault (B-F) as mapped by the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR, 1968). PSE also summarized the reasons the B-F is neither included in an Alquist-Priolo (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1986a, 1986b) zone, nor afforded a structural setback on the study site. PSE, however, expands its discussion (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, Technical Appendix 2, contained in Volume IIA) of the B-F to both respond to the concerns expressed in EIR review comments by Dr. Winchell and to aid future reviewers. This expanded discussion (summarized below with actual exhibits included and included in its entirety in Section 5.0, Volume IIA, Final EIR Technical Appendices) does not change any analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR. The activity-level of the B-F is particularly important because it has been inferred to underlie the study site,hence its importance relative to the potential for fault ground rupture. Review suggests, however, that the CDWR criteria for geological recent movement along the B-F (or even its existence) is specious based on both regional and site-specific assessment. The intensity scale is included in the project geologist's Response to Comments, dated August 3, 1999, as Table B. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, Technical Appendix 2, contained in Volume IIA. Regional Assessment According to the project geotechnical consultant, the B-F was first mapped at and near the study site by CDWR in 1968 (attached Figure 1, Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume IIA) based on several lines of indirect evidence: 1) topography on Huntington Beach Mesa; 2) an inferred 3-meter vertical offset of the lower Holocene to uppermost Pleistocene Bolsa Aquifer; 3) differences in ground water quality in late Pleistocene deposits across the inferred fault, and 4) oil-well data northwest of Bolsa Chica Mesa in the Sunset Beach Oil Field. For reference, the inferred trace of the fault as mapped by the CDWR (1968) is shown on Plate I (in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA). The City of Huntington Beach (1995), the State of California (1986a, 1986b), and Bryant (1985) indicate, however, that the fault is not active based on a variety of arguments.,A map of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone [attached Figure 2, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA, modified from City of Huntington Beach (1995)] depicts the B-F as "inactive or non-existent (sic)." Several lines of evidence lead to the conclusion that the B-F, if extant, is pre-Holocene. For example, the commonly cited (02sr40 EIR 97-2) Attachment No.4.1 topographic evidence for existence of the fault and of its activity-level on nearby Huntington Beach Mesa is an apparent left-lateral offset drainage course. This deflection is in essence most likely a remnant or antecedent bend in the old drainage course, for lateral slip along elements of the N-I is exclusively dextral or right-lateral. Further, the assumed 3-meter (-10 feet) offset of the Bolsa Aquifer is based on information interpolated between two water wells about 2500 feet apart (attached Figure 3, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA) -- insufficiently close enough to distinguish fault offset from slight (.23 degrees) regional dip or irregularities in the top and bottom of the Bolsa Aquifer. Differences in ground water quality across the inferred B-F are seemingly detectable in the pre-Holocene (Pleistocene) deposits (attached Figure 4, Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume IIA). Those differences, however, are not detectable across the mapped fault in the uppermost Pleistocene to lower-Holocene Bolsa Aquifer(attached Figure 5, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA). As shown on attached Figure 6, (Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA) the faults mapped at the Sunset Beach Oil Field (California Division of Oil and Gas, 1991) neither trend in the same direction as, nor are they spatially or laterally consistent with, the inferred B-F fault. Further, the cross-section in Figure 6 shows the oil field faults as being pre-middle-Pliocene -- several million years old. Thus, evidence of the B-F northwest of the study site is, at a minimum, equivocal. Site Snecific Assessment According to the project geotechnical consultant, from a site-specific standpoint, examination of both hollowstem-auger borings and cone penetrometer test(CPT) soundings in the context of the regional geology suggests that if indeed the B-F is present beneath the surface at the study site, it is pre-Holocene. These explorations allow PSE to synthesize an uppermost Pleistocene to upper Holocene stratigraphic section useful for judging the B-F activity level. Uppermost Pleistocene Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage 2/Lower Stage 1 (Bolsa Aquifer) Sediments According to the project geotechnical consultant, basal sands that are perhaps 20- to 30-feet thick (CDWR, 1968, Cross-Section G-G'; Figure 3, Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II) overlie middle to upper Pleistocene deposits (PSE, 1998; Exhibits 38 through 41, EDAW, Inc., 1998) and form the base of unlithified sediments in the upper stratigraphic section at the study site. Based on stratigraphic position, lithology, location, and water- bearing characteristics, PSE correlates this basal unit with the "Bolsa water bearing gravel/sand (Aquifer)" of Poland, et al. (1956) and CDWR. (1966, 1968) that was previously considered lower Holocene. However, recent investigations (Law/Crandall, 1994; Shlemon et al., 1995; Grant, et al., 1995) demonstrate that the Bolsa is uppermost Pleistocene rather than Holocene in age. The dating stems from correlation of the basal sands and gravels to the marine oxygen isotope stage chronology and from 10,700 to 11,700 years old radiocarbon dates for immediately overlying sediments. (02sr40 EIR 97-2) Attachment No.4.2 These basal sands/gravels make a rather remarkable time line and marker bed, for they are easily recognizable in boring logs, and have sharp, unique signatures on the cone penetrometer test(CPT) soundings. Holocene Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage 1 Sediments According to the project geotechnical consultant, lower to upper (modern) Holocene fining upward sediment superposed on the Bolsa basal sands (Aquifer) consists of about 30- to 40- feet of locally fossil-rich, gleyed (unoxidized) clays, silts, fine- to occasionally coarse- grained sands and occasional peat beds. These are alluvial/intertidal/ marsh sediments, replete with small outwash channels that were laid down as Holocene sea-level rose. These deposits are locally well stratified and provide good signatures on cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings. Bolsa-Fairview Fault Assessment According to the project geotechnical consultant, for this transmittal, PSE compared or "calibrated" cone penetrometer test(CPT) soundings with hollowstem-boring logs to identify and match the "30 to 40 feet basal sands" (Bolsa Aquifer) reported in the boring logs with CPT sounding signatures. Comparison of the boring logs with the CPT soundings showed that the basal sands gave rise to a unique, identifiable CPT sounding signature, and that some Holocene sand/clay beds, also yielded useful "marker" signatures. A commonly used and an increasingly acceptable method of fault exploration (Grant, et al., 1995; Law-Crandall, 1994; Freeman, et al., 1992; PSE, 1996) in areas underlain by saturated sediments is correlation of CPT soundings across a suspected fault, much like the use of E- log correlation's in oil field exploration. This firm thus constructed three cross-sections or CPT Correlation Lines across the inferred B-F of CDWR (1968). Although the elevations of the CPT soundings were not surveyed, adequate topographic control was available on Plate I, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA. The Bolsa Aquifer does not seem to be offset(faulted) near the inferred trace of the CDWR (1968) B-F based on CPT Correlation Lines A-A' through C-C' (Plates II through IV, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA). Rather, the top of the Bolsa seems "undisturbed". And overlying Holocene marker beds are likewise not offset. Near the southwest comer of the site, the Bolsa is five to ten feet deeper than below the rest of the site. By contouring the top of the Bolsa in that area (Plate I, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA), it is clear that the change in depth is not linear, as would be expected if the stratum were offset by a fault. The change is semi- circular, thereby indicating that depositional processes (channeling; topographic controls) account for the differences in depth. Note that the dip of the top of the Bolsa in the area of depth change is but two to three degrees. The exaggerated vertical scale of the CPT Correlation Lines makes the depth changes seem abrupt. (02sr40 EIR 97-2) Attachment No.4.3 Summary According to the project geotechnical consultant, in sum, on-site evidence strongly suggests that, if extant, the B-F is pre-Holocene, and thus not active according to Alquist-Priolo standards; such is consistent with the Class D assignment of the fault (Figure 2, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA) by the City of Huntington Beach (1995). Further, regional evidence is equivocal for even its existence. Accordingly, no setbacks have been recommended for the inferred B-F of CDWR(1968). (02sr40 EIR 97-2) Attachment No.4.4 r_:}?.;{:}}. aSetLEGEND 00 e. ::::?!t•:.::.}«i:«j:. jT f:::::. RIG"YO OM OVOa1T[ go Sam s - �r - - - - w•Rt A s au Od uRa•T[ WT pT♦L RCNT tD DDNrau AND L•a00N•l r - - a 0 Y ! r r � r. .Rs eu a S �0 • �-:il�?'yii`?: •:•k s:ir}}�F}^P;:}'��.i�.yi l•(t1000 Y•r TOR OR ' •." CONTRI(Nr♦L•le Y♦RIIR{cW[l,SAW.lli•10 a♦r -r;;�:•}}}flzr:::}p::::p?i.:::::::'•:r:�1 _ ewfacr.s(1o[s•KR(YMIO[IY•TELT LOCATED. r• ;v ;.j,_..-RMGIN f•YIT.s•L!O F.•:r}:-i::.�9 WRONG• urt LDCa 00TTc0 mRancCoxc[4Lo.u upTMROuN smat. 0DOWNT N •11!e[-•cRO!(0CATE R[L r [ LATERAL MWILSHENT f O ' .- _-__-ovirna(D T•OLT,•T•IpRIY•T[LT LOC♦T[O♦ND CONCEu(a. - - SECTOR. f:-}Fir:}:•«�e� �/j� � I.0! OlW ![CTIOM!•s[MIOYN ql . rL•Tca u me is r :a;: «t: ✓ -;:3:•iiinaz::'u.r:T.w.„^: ':7'}iiY}}:^ ' R4:4:%>"`"';::.:;:;:�:„��iz��`% <i:•:t,r;.•,:-::. - - LOCATION OF WELLS AND TEST HOLES WITH LOOS ?i;:%':br}`-" ;ss c!� $ :.::,- �::•:;.. :.}}::}:;c: - :::t USED IN THIS REPORT I 4CRT s T T• NTM-I A S ILL[ [!7 MOLE•1 N DR•-l[R'!EST oy� - Ns-I•ND s•-$Po 4 SIGNAL oa♦le a•!Cow,ANY rcar MDLea is Fes`.:..._ . r $�:::. Si}: 'c;i:i�«iS::•. �,5 G� ® OSKRY•TI011•LLL 011 nrwcmr r art MOIL•ITY s[Ol0(ISTY lOs } 0 - st-I tl•Ms aao-O(TMTYtNT W NTU c(lOVRCL• .. '. i [. '::::#'� ;$t`si':%�':.`.�..'' u-uerto lard omLoalcu wRa[r .............. omi S �.. _. ::::-:.:•:-a:::. :...fix;;::. _ - ® u fssvt nrM tlterRe Lw •i::,:••::- ::v}� ......,, mac_ .... ..........--................. f,•}}iii:::.}• ;......._..::-. e.....av::re::a-::r::::v::.::;ya}:::.:. M' a-s H-LM Y([lEs oM Ol000 CO slareKr \ a.�:::.�:. _ — _s _ _ .,5s • NR.MurrearoN M•RtoM DR ewrosATMISrTas •m::.mac..__:: ................... _ __��=5 —--. =_ • -.. •::'-�.,'riii::'�. • 0 f:x:::::.•:::::••::}r.•............. .... :: :•:•::::•:. � --^"'---- r= .__ ........... _ bl as.WELL•ml o•ucR'!La ...t....... g as..... OR.MtL:wrN utcrs Loa ..... ... -•. _ _ __ ....;......:::...::::::xy:::::::.::.: :irSiA&V tlulp(Ost[Av♦reN WILL'IfTn KOl9alah La .L..:.:.. �!Si2•i}7;}.«:f. .: .[�:::::; - --- - -- _ ::{.g .;...:: .:.-it,!�}:::i:r:.;:.: �C �1s0.sOSNA LOG .......... -4 ::4::;-::;ar,}:�::5::;4';.�;�:r::�::.' . ............................ _- - FIGURE 1 i� :.ilCiiiC:i�iTii}; �:�ciy�.`_�:iii?:ii:}:{.i? - _____ -�-y - __ fM...r ' .,..:_ :•.:::::•::>• :•:.:.«•.:-..y..:.:.:..;...•}.`.-}..s.%..c.r..:;.. .. :y s.;.......... MODIFIE D CDWR(1968)LZ _ . "r I - - - ••:.:!?i::•i: ;:yik:.i•}:•:fu rt OI CYIIOMMI♦ lo-Sa. - - — ---e:-- •: i �Sk:-..:•::::��tt��::i�'gcs:'ts ? �:;i;ia THE Rc+ouRc[a Aaarcr __+• ...} -.T "'� -- _-'��___ .:................::.: .•:.::�<:::::::::::iii :�i?K4ci)'•}r :ii�iy:.;: OEPARIMEM OF WATER RESOURCES _ .d• 4�-r � 1 .,/.- - :�i:�L}:i:::�iii:_i}'•iii:•r::."ci•^-'?i-iiiii.. y4 �'° 'k� ,y. .... ..__ 'G; _..,rT" T♦ -��' �-_ ...1:..:::::::-:rs s011rNERN OtaT7rICT .......... �..,:: .:-: .,-.,�.z`;x � ¢�• ,.. ... ..:;,,;. ... . �"'Rt � :;-:cs}+;:• SEA 'WATER INTRUSION x♦ s` TM, �,M� :a 3 p • 1 r 80LSA-3UNSET AREA, -•_ r Srw a,��`•�G� ..- "�ws + �w�, - � � �T p,�3k�' �yt, 'r� �.t s ,,. + ORANGE COUNTY . �. C_.E" �:� i >. c. rro H T x. �� fry _ � + AREAL GEOLOGY ��)L.�7E fir,.. .,.:( .� ..� •J' R - rFlt�I(R , - 'T .z'•`r,, 'Eu '�`�` 'S 41s-�'� �v7:..` _�_. .=i "°' • '°°°NA, TZ�..ME1"7+ �'l�' s• : U W C U � < a cc CL W W m " w 3 �I o t SEAL •� + WESTMINSTER BEACH ` BOLSA� Q � W Y pz 9 Mc cc e m 2 FADDEN 3 m CCa7� ..,..# Z " ��`"�° EDINGER > HEIL 0/1 WARNER FOUNTAIN \Leh• VALLEY aos SLATER E l V� :::�:•: �� � � 'TALBERT ,c o v 9 . \�i ♦ \ ELLlSCr ♦ a ♦ f _ > N° y S /j B Cr c GARFIELD P w 5 Y 0 r ! Y aim `n q ye nue Fa f YORKTOWN g? ri} ♦ q 7 ?%<%ii:';i•,',•ii~:r.:i iii?fir';'%ti':, � f �j,` FAO is INDIANAPOLIS 7 q e Legend 9 0/ �uef • city Boundary •.'a ♦• V" E F ATLIWTA f r r > p au ♦ � 9 Cate gory A 9 rY c 1 . / Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone '9S y 14AMILTON l I ti Category B o • t 9 � �r Special Studies,including subsurface investigation, as� t'♦ , for critical and im rtant land uses and P ecial • BANNING Po • evaluation of faults for II habitable structur es eva a e s • 1 CO STA Category C MESA Special Studies,including d ng a subsurface investigation, •'�' ?>"� >%' �� ; ::;: , for critical and important land uses ���?�`�<rr::�:'•�`.'•'<:::>`•>'•�>°��<::>!' category o D Inactive or non•existant;subsurface investigation may be required by City ?? Fault Uncertain Source:City of Huntington•Beach,1974 SeismicSagetyyElement.Figure 3•t; FIGURE 2 Fs�? y tso �:z} modified using Leighton B Associates.7986,Figures 2 and 3 MODIFIED FROM CITY OF HUNTIN .�:. _':.•.995) NEWPORT— INGLEWOOD FAULT ZONE Uj °.5 gG�"5 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN EIFt r t SCALE: 1"= 6,000f • r M. E S H ►AC,F,C Oct. SoLiT►i DOLSA S . .. - MORTN iMSA , • _r` IEWPOPT-INGLEWOOD FAULT MORTM DRAMIC O ' t• SECTION A-A' N m ► SOLE FA,RV,Ew FAULT j � J + ._ 55l11w00 -2NJ i 5S/Uw-2705-7 A r , ECws S ( ,) �•', /-t /• /� ,• sec 7toN 9,s' r ! • , 1 3 5s/llw-22G2-4 + / jj +• •: SECTION C-C' w \y . to � ti + LEGEND --30-- LINES OF EOUAL CNLORlDE ION CONCENTRATION IN PPM,1%f-6S. ,. O 4C „� DENOTES THE MAXIMUM EXTENT OF SALT WATER ENCROACHMENT. - V Y `-_I s --50-_ Y LNES OF EQUAL CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATION N PPM,1965. AREA OF SEA WATER INTRUSION WHERE CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATIONS 7.T EXCEED 500 PPM,1965. 11 4- I AREA OF UNDIFFERENTIATED OIL FIELD BRINE CONTAMINATION AND SEA-WATER 11� INTRUSION WHERE CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATIONS EXCEED 500 PPM,1965,ff P �O•� jl M �,••• AREA OF NATIVE SALT WATER WHERE CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATIONS GENERALLY EXCEED IOA00 PPM. \� \1/ \I +� FAULT,DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATELY LOCATED. '�' -+•+-- APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF ALPHA AQUIFER IN BOLSA GAP - ' CONTROL. DATA O WATER WELL WITH CHEMICAL ANAYSIS.WELLS CONSTRUCTED IN VERGED ON MULTIPLE AQUIFERS ARE NOTED ON THE NAPABETAI DENOTES pot // G�\(;P'. I GPp ASSOCIATED AWIFER.RED WELLS DENOTE CHLOROE ON CONCERTRATXMLS >50 PPM. 6i ! _ / / F3 -• a tc00 � O WATER WELL WITH CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AQUIFER UNCERTAIN. VV _ � t OBSERVA-N WELL OR PIE-METER WITH CHEMICAL AIYLYSIS. B HH-HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORPORATION P4r www O �"��/� •A•�_� - t- BS AND 030-DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES. O6-UNITED STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. %�D•P\ -----� �T= =0 O ���. a jam_ 4E-12 • TEST HOLE OR OIL WELL WITH ELECTRIC AQUIFER. .5/59 SALTY WATER Je S91>900 PPM CHLORIDE)IN THE ALPHA AOUIFER.3/590EMOTES \ - --- •W.54 MONTH AND YEAR. I\ q.000 dT` SO I' - _ _`-_ At-DOS 4NGELE9 COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. NOTE;CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF GROUND WATER WHERE COLLECTED DURING 2961-65.E.W:EPT AS NOTED ON THE MAP, - __ i X.y I I-£ a WELL ABANDONED OR DESTROYED AS OF 1965. . FIGURE 4 MODIFIED FROM CDWR(1968) - N3 4y Ep. Lw� f '• - £" £ k �,�.:�, -�`__� — _ — `�-L � � STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY SUNSET BEACHI DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES SOUTHERN DISTRICT SEA -WATER INTRUSION BOLSA-SUNSET. AREA si ORANGE COUNTY O C E A N` CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATIONS \ IN THE ALPHA AQUIFIER EDALE OF FEET moo vloo 6y .A Ti'i5.4f3t1 FNT 1Nn I I'L wTE 9 + LEGEND e \` •:.+\ ♦\ ` --50-- LINES OF EQUAL CHLORIDE DN CONCENTRATION IN PPM,19G1-$3. r \'. ryry y/ >;��♦♦ ryb DENOTES THE MAXIMUM EXTENT Of SALT WATER ENCROACHMENT pA/' ♦ `� --50--LINES OF EQUAL CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATION IN PPM,1965. AREA OF OIL FIELD BRINE CONTAMINATION WHERE CHLORIDE ION�.t1S\ ® CONCENTRATIONS EXCEED 250 PPM,I995. V, I ,Ir t AREA OF NATNE SALT WATER WHERE CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATIONS GENERALLY EXCEED 2000 PPM. I 1 ,. . . N �♦ � FIULT,W3HED WHERE APPROXIN47ELY LOMTEO: APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF BOILSA AQUIFER. eQ\ 12A 1 \`—`� CONTROL1 DATA Al ._ / �/F�t.�,.• J p /'/ Q WATER WELL CORN CHEMICAL ANAY3LI.WELL4 CONSTRUCTED IN NERO / '•'P / ♦ ( ,J�r "p Oft MULTIPLE AQUIFERS ARE NOTED ON THE MAPAALPHA)DENOTES ,�Mq >50 PPM. 40UIFER.RED WELLS DENOTE CHLORIDE ON CONCE71T11AI L\` iK.6{" • >'A PPM. CIS E3 WATER WELL WITH CHEMICAL ANALYSIS.AQWFER UNCERTAIN. TEST HOLE WITH CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. O OBSERVATION WELL OR►IEWMETER WITH CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. ' `\ �•- � '��-' _ DSO-0A B3 AND BSD-DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES. .i ..� I SITE 1 —r� jV1E W-__T_ _ _ P 32 Al TEST HOLE WITH ELECTRIC LOG SHO 1901 SN TY WATER I>SOD PPM BS•4 CHLORIDE)IN THE BOLSA AQUIFER """:CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF GROUND WATER WHERE COLLECTED OUIII _ %, - - -•., \♦ 1961-65,EXCEPT AS NOTED ON THE MAP. E)WELL ASANDONED'OR DESTROYED AS OF MSS. `♦�\ / _ - - - —\\ .-� // SALTY HATER 02SOPpn CI)WAS REPORTED IN THE BOl3A AQUIFER WHEN TNS WELL WAS DRILLED IN 1940, ti9 FIGURE 5 '' F`'P = I \♦ MODIFIED FROM CDWR(1968) It I. \ srwTC OF CALIFORNIA ?• THE RESOURCES AGENCY SOLSq S« \ aKA `� - ��� gP'. _ ♦ DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES .• .. . { \♦ SOUTHERN DISTRICT R AT' b, ♦ SEA -WATER INTRUSION ♦ BOLSA-SUNSET AREA + ORANGE 'COUNTY ^' CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATIONS O. E IN THE 90LSA AQUIFIER �yTw T ° I (UPPERMOST PLEISTOCENE TO HOLOCENE) . y9 yD t j,. +' 99UI De m C YQ� {i r t P kzt� er RHO *`.11 1 "Q.ol- SUNSET BEACH OIL FIELD EDINGER AVE. :K. C I I ` \ T5S RIIW 6100W. \ \\\ ss:?•;?�4i;kF;4*� `ems . .ti.;.�::>::>:;y;!;i..; :irx:.:;.:.; t: '";',.: y:Y.s:M'.•�+.::i s::?v8a2`;+•:j.'•�s �e c�::� ;.tr,�:`.rv"I"I::r..:y:<>.:..;:.....:;��;t.:,;;:{�t•ti:.::r.s,..� 2 tc.Y �'?;��°'.:.•v 0,S,.s�Ql„'.v ;:Y':�•:tix•?l\ :�� \w ?a'v` ".•;�•v.�.�.•v.;•.•4-.',••.'f.!".,+', '�^::• v e1�7800':.qq�i. IX LB V �" tpy,�t::i! 't::}M1.;.� Cv''•k+`•:�' `L:i'fti`:S`: ';•i:ti� \ R(1968) �,,, a ?���;K� '•�j INFERRED TRACE �., WARNER AVE. vZ 30 P 29 SITE Ze CONTOURS ON TOP OF LOMITA LANDS (MAIM ZONE 0 y 9 m 9 -ni m C y 2 q_ _ ___ ______— ___—_----____ —B c 3000 .. 3000 3000 3000 y mm m PICO.. � s 0 s 4000 r 0 m �REPErro.. 000 _ D '" rO a / 1 m 1 0 s / woo RAMsER o R4M5 r� __ `^••....,�„�^mow. L MANSE, LOWER RAMi 6. c.y 6Q/ / o m G �M ......�, 0 —4ON to 6000 2 LOMII MAIN)TA NO3 `'N`z0M m ®/Q s c 0 FIGURE 6 ; m FROM GDOG (1991) _ _ Flooding The following information is excerpted from the Response to Comments for EIR No. 97-2, specifically response SJK-1 (page 4-5) and Ema-4(page 4-54). According to the project civil engineer, the existing storm drain system was designed to accommodate a 10 to 25 year storm. The Orange County Hydrology Manual defines a storm "frequency" as "the frequency of occurrence of events with the specified precipitation depth and duration. This is expressed in terms of either the return period (e.g., 10-year) or exceedance probability. Exceedance probability is the probability or chance that a given storm magnitude will be equal or exceeded in any year. The County also notes that "a 100-year precipitation event will not necessarily occur exactly once in every 100 years but actually has a finite probability that it will occur in several consecutive years or not at all in a period of 100 years. Currently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mandates that communities (city/county) administer flood plain regulations, including mandatory flood insurance and development criteria to meet the impacts of a(100-year) flood hazard. This change in design criteria has resulted in a deficiency in most storm-drain facilities built prior to the mid-1980's. The City's Master Plan calls for the storm drain system in Graham Street to ultimately be a 120-inch diameter pipe. The existing 60-inch diameter pipe in Graham Street was sized and designed using the older and now outdated hydrology criteria and cannot accommodate the current expected runoff volume of a 100-year frequency design storm flow. The City has adopted design criteria specified by the County of Orange Hydrology Manual, which uses the current and more stringent design criteria to comply with FEMA's flood protection standards. The proposed Parkside Estates development conforms with the master-planned drainage upgrades required by the City (please refer to storm drain exhibits, Exhibit 42 for the original project and Exhibits 58 and 71 for the new alternatives in Section 5.0 Final EIR (Volume II)), and also will provide a much-improved level of flood protection for the homes within the neighborhoods to the north and east of the Parkside Estates Project by reducing existing flows to the 60" storm drain in Graham Street. There is no difference in water surface displacement of flood risk to neighboring property whether the project is constructed at 5.5 feet or 11 feet (NAVD 1988 datum). All alternatives will provide improved drainage. The applicant is being required by the City and County to improve the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel by removing the existing trapezoidal slope channel wall on the northern side of the channel adjacent to the project site and replacing it with a vertical wall of sheet-pile or equivalent. This will widen and increase the capacity of the channel by turning the trapezoidal channel into a rectangular one on the proposed development side. This will provide for a stable barrier against the erosion of the channel berm (refer to Exhibit 6C-1 section"0-0" located in Section 5.0 Final EIR (Volume II) and Mitigation Measures identified on page 5-142 of the EIR). The north side of the flood control channel that fronts the project site will be improved as a condition of development imposed by Orange County. The levee will be reconstructed using sheet piling or equivalent. The project proponent will pay for construction, but design will be according to County standards, and construction will be subject to County inspection. Impacts of construction of flood control channel improvements was discussed in prior certified EIR 560 dated February 1998. Section 3.5 Phasing of County EIR 560 requires that the potential adverse impact of construction of any reach, on any downstream reach, be investigated: "Improvements to those areas of the channel system with the greatest (02sr40 EIR 97-2) Attachment No.4.11 deficiencies would be provided prior to those areas with less deficiencies, subject to the evaluation that upstream improvements do not adversely impact unimproved downstream reaches."(emphasis added). The basis for County records is the assumption that all the runoff in the upstream watershed can be delivered to the flood control channel and conveyed downstream. This assumed"future condition" flow is appropriate for design of new flood control structures. This assumed flow will also be used for design of the improvements fronting the project site. The existing watershed condition,however, includes areas of upstream flooding and reaches of channel that overtop and release excess flow before it can reach the project site. The design flow cannot now be delivered to the project site primarily due to the deficiencies in the C05 Channel from Beach Boulevard to Woodruff Street. Section 3.5 Phasing of County EIR 560 recommends restricting upstream improvements to those reaches that will not cause an increase in flow in downstream unimproved reaches. FEMA, in a letter dated December 3, 2001, has also concluded that breakouts upstream provide protection for downstream reaches: "However, the additional data submitted in support of this request indicate significant storage in the watershed and breakout of flows along the channel that cause a lower base flood discharge to reach the Shea Homes Parkside Estates property. Given these characteristics, we believe that the revised base flood discharge estimate also is reasonable." Additionally, the following information is excerpted from the Response to Comments for EIR No. 97- 2, specifically response RPA-21 (page 3-182) and DR#2-5 (4-53). The property to the north does flood under existing conditions because of an inadequate existing drainage system. With the proposed project, however, substantial improvements will be made to the off-site storm drain system serving the community; in particular, the Graham St.- Kenilworth Dr. intersection will become passable during a local 100-year event. Additionally, the following information is excerpted from the Response to Comments for EIR No. 97- 2, specifically Erna-4: Widening the flood control channel and construction of a sheet pile levee will increase the conveyance area and flow capacity of the flood control channel fronting the proposed development and the flow impact area across from the outlets of Slater Pump Station. The impact of additional runoff from the project site (peak discharge of 126 cubic ft. per second) will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Water surface elevations along four miles of the flood control channel from the tide gates to Gothard Street will substantially remain the same or decrease slightly. There will be a small (one-half inch) temporary (less than one hour) increase in water surface elevation in the immediate vicinity of the Slater Pump Station outlet only during pumping activity. This increase will not extend into Bolsa Chica. Note that the EGGW flood control channel in the vicinity of the Slater Pump Station has at least 2 ft. of freeboard, and will be able to absorb the small temporary increase in water surface elevation. (02sr40 EIR 97-2) Attachment No.4.12 552 9ZO 9449 P .02 Sep-10-OZ 09:06A POALAC Ga6rielino Ton$va lnJians„F Califomia Ro6crt j=.Dordmc Tribal�hairpersun j450,5lausonAvenue,,5uiba 9 rMt, Tri6al •. CounciCulvor city,(�A 90Z 50-60w Voice. 56z-9Z5-7989 Fax. 5 6 Z-9 Zo-9-1-'9 eton ey-n0eartk link.n ct September 10, 2002 City of Huntington Beach aC � Planning Commission SEP 112002 Public Hearing Statement Dear Commissioners: The Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council is very Interested and concerned about the proposed development of Parkside Estates. The project is within the traditional boundaries of our tribe's ancestral territories as acknowledged by the Native American Heritage Commission, a state entity. Contrary to the comments listed in the EIR regarding the Bolso Chico (ORA 83) development site, for more than 19 ancestral remains have been uncovered in the past ten years, along with significant cultural artifacts. We are not referring to fragments of remains as stated in the EIR, but rather, fully articulated burials of our ancestors. The whole area, on both sides of the property line Is highly culturally sensitive, including ORA 1308 and 1309. We feel the cultural resource impact listed in the EIR is exceptionally conservative and unexpected discoveries are likely to occur during soil disturbances at the Parkside Estates development. It is critical that Gabrielino Tongva Indians are engaged to monitor all phases of pre- construction including soil testing, grading and utility trenching that involves any soil disturbances. This includes any archeological testing prior to development. In the event of any uncovering of human eemoins, it is crucial that a plan is in place to insure any ancestral remains are treated with dignity and sensitivity in the removal and reburial process. We are prepared to provide a copy of our Burial Procedures and will be available to consult with the land owner if this occurs. We appreciate the opportunity to present our concerns to you about this development project. Thank you for your consideration of our request. i erely. RAert Dorame Tribal Chairperson ATTACHMENT 9 Vicki L. Wilson,Director ,. °�,� O 300 s ' `e `GE Ana,CA U P.O.Box 4048 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 tFOR �s� PUBLIC FACILITIES RESOURCES Telephone: 14 834-2300 �l DEPARTMENT Fax (714)834-5188 4 September 19, 2002 D W pRKs Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief . pE?t•of�uguC Hazards Study Branch _.. � Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration SEP 2 42002 Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, DC 20472 Subject: Proposed Shea Homes Parkside Estates Development- CLOMR Dear Mr. Miller: This is in response to your letter dated July 29, 2002 regarding a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) dated June 6, 2002 for Shea Homes' proposed Parkside Estates development along the northerly side of East Garden Grove-Wintersburg (EGGW) Channel in the City of Huntington Beach. This CLOMR was approved by FEMA based on information provided by Shea Homes'with City of Huntington Beach approvals as Community Officials pursuant to CFR 65.4(b) of FEMA regulations. Since floodplain delineations for Federal Flood Insurance purposes are based on FEMA regulations and procedures, the review and approval of the technical merits and assumptions used in delineating a floodplain is best accomplished by FEMA or their contractors. Consequently, we believe the validity of claims made by Mr. Mark D. Bixby needs to be responded to by FEMA and its decision based on its own review of the material submitted. In regard to comments made by Mr. Bixby in your letter, who indicated the County"would impose automatic throttle-back limits to prevent these pumps from causing the EGGW Channel to overflow"we provide you with the following: 1. When an entity such as the City of Huntington Beach installs new pumps that discharge into a county maintained flood control channel, we request the city to seek approval from the county flood control district for such an installation via a County Public Property Permit. 2. The approval of any such pump installation at the Slater Pump Station would be.based on our review and analysis of the new pump's discharge into--the flood control channel and the ability of the channel to accommodate the increased discharge. 3. The City of Huntington Beach or Shea Homes has yet to submit a request to discharge additional storm flows into the EGGW channel from the Slater Pump Station. However, the 0 ��� Matthew B. Miller Page 2 building for the Slater Pump Station and discharge lines for future pumps were previously submitted by the City and concurred in by the County. 4. The OCFCD would support the installation of new pumps at the Slater Pump Station provided the previously committed water surface elevation in the EGGW Channel adjacent the pump station does not exceed the mean sea elevation of 9.00 as a result of the increased discharge. The datum is based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (714) 834-3719 or Sara Bavan, Manager, Flood Control Programs at (714) 834-3181. SJincere ,"c Hne, Manager PW/Flood Control Division S:\Programming\A B Mehta\Shared Folder\2002-0632 M.Miller-MMA.doc cc: Dave Webb, City Engineer, City of Huntington Beach Robert Beardsley, Director of Public Works, City of Huntington Beach Kenneth R. Smith, Director Public Works/Chief Engineer, PFRD Jim Miller, Manager, PW/Engineering & Permit Services Bill Tidwell, Manager, PW/Operations & Maintenance Nadeem Majaj, Manager, PW/FCD/F C Design & Project Management Sara Bavan, Manager, PW/FCD/Flood Control Programs Ron Metzler, Shea Homes CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner` - DATE: September 24, 2002 SUBJECT: PARKSIDE ESTATES—RESPONSE TO COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 In response to the 9/20/02 Coastal Commission staff(CCC) correspondence, staff has consulted its EIR consultant, EDAW, and the water quality consultant, Rivertech, Inc. In response to specific statements in the 9/20/02 correspondence staff offers the following responses. 1. The letter (3rd paragraph) states "our concern was that the Rivertech Reports (1998 and 2002) used inaccurate data and assumptions to help explain and support the EIR's findings of insignificant impact." Response: These reports were not used to support the EIR's findings of insignificant impact. The April 1998 Draft EIR concluded that water quality impacts of the project would be less than significant because the project would be required,per Drainage/Hydrology Mitigation Measures 2 and 3, to comply with federal and state water quality requirements, specifically the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) requirements. In other words, the NPDES and WQMP standards/requirements, by definition, preclude a project from further degrading water quality. The December 1998 Rivertech, Inc. report was prepared after the Draft EIR (and its conclusions of less than siginificant) was circulated for review. The 1998 report was prepared in response to comments on the Draft regarding what type of water quality techniques might be employed and specifically cited CDS units. At that time, CDS units were "state of the art"technology and the data provided in the 1998 Rivertech, Inc. report were based on information from the manufacturer and generally accepted in the industry. The 2002 Rivertech report was prepared at the request of the Department of Public Works to speak to the not-yet-adopted but expected requirements for an Urban Runoff Management Plan. 2. The letter (3rd paragraph) states "CDS units do not achieve 90% reductions of all urban runoff pollutants, and therefore, there will not be 45% area-wide reductions in pollutant load as was stated in the EIR." Response: The City and the water quality consultant concur that data now show that CDS units do not achieve 90%reductions in concentrations of pollutants. This was communicated in the Rivertech, Inc. memoranda attached to the 9/24/02 Planning Commission staff report. Regarding the 45% figure, given that CDS units are not as effective as they were believed to be in 1998, additional Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be required in order to achieve reductions in pollutant loads. Examples of possible BMPs were summarized in the 9/17/02 Rivertech, Inc. memorandum, and page 4 of the 9/24/02 staff report reviews the EIR discussion of BMPs. Depending on the constituents and BMPs used in the detailed WQMP, it is possible that the 45% figure will not be achieved, or could be exceeded. The Response to Comments (RTC) and technical reports prepared for the RTC state that from the project site and adjacent 21.8 acre area "it is predicted that the mitigated pollutant loads to Slater Channel after development would be less than existing levels by approximately 45 percent." Staff believes that this language in the RTC does not require modification as it was based on best available information at that time and is an approximation. More importantly,the EIR conclusion that there would not be significant impacts was not predicated on that approximation. Finally, the EIR does not state that there will be an area-wide reduction in pollutant load but, rather, speaks solely to a reduction to Slater Channel as evidenced in the RTC quoted above. 3. The letter (4t' paragraph) states, "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." Response: The above statement is making an unfair comparison using only partial statements from the RTC without disclosing the full content of the response. Several water quality responses including Response OCPD#2-6 on page 4-74 of Volume I of the July, 2002 Final EIR state the following, "the project will not adversely affect water quality in Huntington Harbor. In fact, as a result of the project, the mitigated pollutant loads to the Slater Pump Station forebay will be less than existing levels from that same area." Contrary to the CCC assertion,the 45% figure was cited as the anticipated reduction in mitigated pollutant loads to the Slater Channel and not the anticipated reduction for Huntington Harbor. Thus, the above EIR response statement is true and consistent with the information presented in Rivertech Inc.'s 9/17/02 Memorandum. Under CEQA criteria, project impacts can be found to be"less than significant" as long as they do not further degrade an existing degraded condition. In discussing the EGGWC and Huntington Harbor water bodies, the 9/17/02 Memorandum states, "Rivertech's URMP will identify solutions that will not degrade the quality of receiving waters as compared to existing."This statement is also consistent with the above response that the project will not adversely affect the water quality in Huntington Harbor. 4. The letter (56' paragraph) states, "In addition, Rivertech concurs with the Coastal Commission staff s statement that run-off from this development can reach the Bolsa Chica reserve, although the EIR states otherwise." Response: The above statement is not accurate and gives the reader the impression that the most recent 9/17/02 Rivertech, Inc. Memorandum contradicts the analysis provided on pages 5-141 through 5-142 of the EIR and Rivertech Inc.'s prior two reports prepared in response to comments and incorporated into the RTC/Final EIR. The 9/17/02 Memorandum provides the following scenario in which"run-off from this development can reach the Bolsa Chica Reserve"; "Runoff from the planned Parkside Estates will be released into the Slater Channel from where it will be pumped to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (EGGWC) which discharges into Bolsa Bay. Bolsa Bay in turn discharges into Huntington Harbor. Through tidal action and oceanic processes it is possible for the runoff from the Bolsa Bay to reach the Bolsa Reserve when the tide gates are open." It should be noted that the `Bolsa Bay" referred to in the above sentence is the Outer Bolsa Bay, and the reference to the `Bolsa Reserve" is the Inner Bolsa Bay, sometimes also refered to as Bolsa Chica Reserve. The Memorandum further explains that post treated project runoff along with the additional 21.8 acre area will be improved over existing conditions prior to being pumped into the Slater Channel and would logically remain at this improved level(i.e.better than existing)when it ultimately reaches Huntington Harbor. Furthermore, the above referenced CCC statement does not indicate a"specific location" where, "the EIR states otherwise." Based upon EDAW's review of the EIR and RTC we believe that Coastal Commission staff is referring to response CCC # 2-10 on page 4-64 of Volume I of the July, 2002 Final EIR. This response states the following: "According to the project civil engineer, there is no run-off directed to the wetland restoration area as proposed by the Parkside Estates project. The engineer has designed the site to have raised elevations on the west end and local drainage will flow toward the center of the site. The run-off from the proposed project is collected on surface and in underground pipes and then conveyed to the Slater Storm Drain Pump Station, where it is pumped into the EGGW Channel. Please refer to Volume II, Appendix F of the EIR for an expanded discussion of this information." The above EIR paragraph contains true statements that do not conflict with Rivertech Inc.'s statements explaining the process in which the collected and treated project runoff could ultimately reach Huntington Harbor and the Bolsa Chica reserve. The"wetland restoration area"referred to above is the Bolsa Chica Wetland,which receives no runoff from EGGWC and is not the same as Bolsa Chica Reserve. In conclusion, staff appreciates the CCC staff s acknowledgement that a detailed WQMP is not required at this stage of a project but instead is prepared after project approval. Staff belives that the above responses clarify misunderstandings about the content of the EIR and belives that the EIR is adequate. Cc: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Scott Hess,Planning Manager ATTACHMENT 10 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNnNGTON BEACH WWI TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Scott Hess, Planning Manager &,--, DATE: September 19, 2002 SUBJECT: PARKSIDE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Attached are written communications relative to the Environmental Impact Report and associated entitlements for the Parkside Residential project received since the September 10, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. They include nine letters received at the September 10 meeting,and other correspondence received by the Department of Planning since that time. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letters received at the September 10, 2002 Planning Commission. 2. Letter received on September 12 from Raymond Cook and Anne Carlsson. 3. Letter received on September 18 from D.H. 4. Correspondence from Mark Bixby received September 19 including a CD-ROM. 5. Letter received September 19, 2002 f rom Dr. Lauterborn & Mark Flores. (c:\hess\projects\parkside\pcmemo02.doc) ATTACH MENT 1 Sept. 10,2002 Huntington Beach Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach, CA RE: proposed Shea project, " Parkside" Sirs, madams: We are very upset concerning the proposed Shea development adjacent to our property. We have been in our home over ten years now, and It was our original intention to retire here. Now, We're not so sure. MANY of the problems with the proposed development are simply not being dealt with. From the very beginning, Shea's representatives have been not only evasive and inaccurate, but have also been simply rude to the local residents who are, for very good reasons, concerned about MANY unanswered questions or uncertain variables relating to the proposed development. Following is a partial list of concerns: 1) Increased traffic; the terrible situation with a street light to be installed on Graham,-just on the hill approaching the bridge- it will only be a matter of time before someone is killed at this location if the light is installed. People drive Graham just like they do Bolsa Chica-like it was a freeway, at speeds of over 50mph, ALL THE TIME. 2) My property value will NOT be helped by the Shea project, as they would have us believe. I CANT EVEN BELIEVE THAT THE CITY COULD APPROVE PLANS that call for the SEVERE tilling of the property that Shea has proposed .(up to 12 FEET!, sloping toward MY HOUSE!) We're already in a flood plane!! �3) It is almost a certainty that Greenleaf Lane will be opened almost IMMEDIATELY to allow traffic RIGHT THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, because the ONE place they have planned for entrance/exit will certainly not be adequate. (JUST EXACTLY what happened with Greentree Lane—off of Warner- years ago when this subdivision was built, according to people who bought here back then.) 1. 1 4) Increased loads on the Fire Department 5) Increased potential flooding, and more problems relating to the flood channel. There are many more unresolved issues, to be sure. I would like to see some support from the city for the proposal to make the Parkside area a Park-we don't have a local park-and to have It be part of the flood control/runoff system. The County has already acknowledged the need for such a place, and agrees that the Parkside area would be a suitable site. Do we really have to develop every square inch of land left in Huntington Beach? When I moved here, it was a really attractive, diversified community. More and more it looks like all that will be left of Huntington Beach in the future is wall-to-wall identical houses, built too close to each other, and block after block of huge Hotels and commercial establishments along the beach. Look what has happened in the last 15 yearsl Fifteen years from now, if it keeps up like this, will you, or anyone else,want to live here?? ' Sincerely, Brya & obin star 5 .8 a ilworth Dr. HB, C 2649 September 10, 2002 PLANNING AND THINKING AHEAD; Re: Shea Homes and Impact on Current Residents All too often, over the past 20 years of the great Southern California building boom, mistakes that were made in planning were not realized until the flood or mudslide or other distructive event occurred. Of course the disaster came after the planners who approved the doomed homes were long gone. There are many examples of flooded or sliding homes,which when the cause analysis was done it was found that the dwellings were built in unsafe or questionable areas (such as the recent example in Yorba Linda). But those who built and approved the 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 enevitable 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 could have the potential to create some of these serious problems for several hundred current residents. Although the builder has made a significant effort to address and possibly mitgate some concerns,it is still unclear what condtions could occur before all proposed flood preparations would be completed. Residents also believe that a new, complete and realistic on-site traffic study needs to be conducted. There have been and will be other specific concerns addresser)here tonight.. We surely hope that this Planning Commission will not join the invisible ranks of those misguided planners who approved a project which later created severe problems after they,too, are long gone. Priscilla Wolz 5392 Kenilworth Dr. Huintington Beach, CA 92649 9/10/02 Petition for Higher Flood Standard for the Shea Home Development and immediate area. -Petition Signatures attached 1. The Shea Home Development proposes to raise the level of the Shea land above the existing flood plain. During flood conditions the raised Shea land will increase flooding in the Kenilworth tract and surrounding areas. We propose that the City of Huntington Beach adopt and apply a higher flood standard. 2. Higher local city flood standards are needed before the Shea land can be safely developed. Shea Wintersburg Channel and Slater Pump Station modifications west of Graham Street should be modified to a higher flood standard. Items recommended for modification are indicated in paragraph 3.0. 3.0 The City of Huntington Beach Higher Flood Standard for areas near the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. 3.1 The Wintersburg channel West of Graham Street to below the Bolsa Chica Bluffs shall be widened and its walls strengthened to accommodate a higher flood standard. County flood control upgrades and development schedules shall be concurrent with proposed Shea modifications applying a higher flood standard. 3.2 Slater Pump Station design modifications proposed by Shea shall incorporate emergency flood water redirection to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands bypassing the Wintersburg channel. 3.3 The Shea plan shall add Floodgates to the Wintersburg channel that in an emergency could discharge water to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. 3.4 Shea shall maintain its property at its current height and retain all water on the Shea property. 1 Petition for: Higher Flood Standard for the Shea Home Development and immediate area. Of Signature Address Date L�r�r �:�/��°�/ �, /�-`� �jl tx:.�i.2(/ S�Z.�f r G��-r� �r• �{�. �,/.J_ 7�� r a G i --y—a -z 17/91 1 _ J,�,fin )*�e Y- X, yn a � Sq32 �.�nil �ar-�h, erns' ctVe _ ' _ beep. suer loo -k-e� f / ................ - .......... ........ ------- _ ---------- W��_� Q1 I_IeYL�� li2or�1'�1 _. q� e, _�zo[�J _ .. _._ ...... ................---------- gY'GcQlY2`q'� ,.._ h���. �f : - GL� re� � c��t-t- t5_._ .yJo'�` Cis a ...... -F s�au..(c� __. w i' p...... czcc�. w . .................. __.. . . _... .. .. .... .. . ... ... ....._ .f r w . . . .. .. . . .. . ......... . 5 �. t s2. � 4 , _ ........-------- _ ................ ....................... ......... .............. ---,I -&--o OF 1 JOIN,, 1. ._�..... lb m�Yt_ass iw : . . .. ............_._......1: . _....:. .. ------- __._: ........... .. L°o�rn(YI, �'_ ���Yt�_.._�Y�1. _..._ _St r�_� �.� �o.�t�,: . . . .. . . . ................................_.._..._.._.. ....__ ....__._.................__...._. ....... ..._........................__..... _..............._ ... , I _._Ia �c .. . _ .. .._._.I ......_._. _. ............... i _ _.._.._...._..... _......................._.. .........................._... . _....._..._...._. ... � .�._ dfA.�...... u. .._.11 . 5, .c.�a�i.. :v -s . ..................... .... �......_ ..... 4t _............. _ ..._..__.�_..__.... _.. _. .... _ ............_...._....... __ .........._..... ............... .�.u. ........'►°�_L ?..........._.. _..._.__. .._ ___._......_.._ _ ._...._........_.._..... .._ ..................... _.. _ ...._......_.... . ............. .. ..._. �...._ _ .._. . _.........._ ........._......................... ..- _.... ...._.. ._........ _.._...._. ...__ _._ _... _..._. _._.......... t.....K. - ..,... ....... __... _.._._..._..M._....__._ ._._._:_.. _..._..................,___-__............� _.. . .. _ _ ���� _____ "��"�.��._ � Wit;:t �1:�3��.� ��� _._..__-- � ��.. ����- ' ___�______--_-._1_�_------_____ ____ � .� ..�.___ ._._.._._ 4 .� � �� �� �_ _.. .. ...... .._....._..._... .: .... .... _. . _..._..........................-......_ ....................:... .......__.. _......... ..._..._._�.......___ ......:__._.._-..___ -- _._._.._---- ----- .._.------ __---- ... ..._.._..._._.._.. __ ............. . ' 'Y��� i C. p'��hl7 w� . `f�Lv� rf. ► . J l► 7,r tic 7 1 11 J) ............. 0 JA-yl _ __.._..._..._-. .__...__..... __..._.....__.._.__ __........_.____ _.___.__..__.._.............. ....._..........____........ ._.__....____......_._ ....._.___.._. _................ _.__..._.._._ _......_..._,___.._.___.. .......... ATTACHMENT 2 �CEM SEP 12 2002 September 10, 2002 Raymond Cook, CPA Anne Carlsson, CPA 5291 Glenroy Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach Planning Commission Huntington Beach Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Re: Comment letter for public record related to Shea Homes Parkside Development Dear Planning Commission of H.B., Our family has resided in our home on Glenroy Drive for over eight years. We moved to this area due to its proximity to the Beach, Bolsa Chica Wetlands and the natural elegance of the eucalyptys groves. We have invested annually in our residence to improve the property and in turn improve our community. Shea Homes has submitted to you an Environmental Impact study related to the development of new single family homes referred to as Parkside Development. We have reviewed the Environmental Impact study submitted to you relateu *,,. :is proposed development and believe that it does not adequately take into consideration the following points: • The effect that the drop in the water table will have on the adjoining property to the north of the development area. The issue of subsidence will have long term implications on the residents in this area. • The Newport/Inglewood fault line is in proximity to this new development and is not adequately discussed in the document. • The area to be developed is part of a natural wetland. Core samples should be taken of the area to ensure that proper protection measures have been taken. a The flooding implication on the surrounding residential area has not been adequately addressed. The raising of the lot levels in the Parkside area by five to nearly eleven feet will have a dire impact on the adjoining residential area. • The additional water run off generated by this development via the removal of a natural flood plane has not been adequately addressed. • The impact that the development will have on the traffic flow on Graham is inadequate and does not take into account the full impact utilizing current flow data. . 7i• 1 In addition to these concerns,there is also a significant concern about the potential opening of Greenleaf Lane. We have been assured that this street would not be open to the development as a public street. We strongly request that the HB City Staff Report #B-3C, attachment 1.6 be modified to specifically preclude and prohibit the future connection of Greenleaf to the Parkside development. We would specifically request that Shea be required to issue an adequate bond to the city of H.B. to cover the potential effects that this development will have on the residential homes surrounding this new home track. This new development, as is currently provided in the application by Shea, will cause the homes to the north to settle as the water table is modified. The issues of foundation cracking,pool and wall damage, and general loss in property values that this will cause needs to be covered by Shea via this bond. Based on the magnitude of this development and the inadequacy of the Environmental Impact study we formally request that you DENY the approval of the Shea Parkside Development application and Environmental Impact study. In addition, we would request that the public be given ample time to review any modifications to this filing, City Staff amendments, etc., prior to public hearings being held on same. Regards, GAL . . �' " t✓ Raymond Cook Anne Carlsson 2 .2 ATTACHMENT 3 RECEIVED SEP 18 2002 16 September 2002 Huntington Beach City planning Commission 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA Re: Shea Homes proposed development Dear planning Commission Members: As members of the Huntington Beach planning Commission, it is imperative that all facts and pertinent information be considered prior to making any decision that will so greatly affect the lives of thousands of people in the areas surrounding the proposed Shea Homes development.Much information has been presented by citizens concerned that the quality of their lives and the value of their properties will be greatly diminished should this development be allowed.what has not been addressed, however, is the devastating effects the Shea Homes project will have on not only the adjacent parcel of state owned wilderness land, but the Bolsa Chiea Wetlands as well.This letter speaks for those without a voice: the plants, animals, and lands of the Bolsa Chiea Wetlands and the wilderness area owned by the State of California. for many years, a large number of people have enjoyed the state wilderness area as a place for peaceful relaxation and exercise. Unfortunately, many of these same people are quite destructive in their pursuit of"fun." Over the past two years, the damage to the environment has escalated at an alarming rate and much of the destruction will take years to undo. Rampant littering, dumping of furniture and construction materials, dogs allowed to roam free and kill wildlife,beer g liquor parties, illegal drug use, sexual intercourse, use of fireworks, off-road riding of motorcycles, bicycles, dune buggies and vehicles, hunting of reptiles for fun and profit, killing of sapling trees, destruction/theft of occupied bird nests, construction of moguls for bicycle jumping, and the shooting of sling shots, paintball t BB guns,and shotguns are only a few of the problems chronic to the area. Many of the people.eausing the damage and engaging in prohibited behaviors live in the areas surrounding the proposed housing development, and many come from communities throughout Huntington Beach and neighboring cities. Entry into the state land and the Bolsa Chiea Wetlands is easily gained from the Wintersburg channel, the southern end of Bolsa Chica Road, and the adjacent housing tracts to the north and south of the Shea homes property. The area is somewhat remote yet simultaneously quite accessible by bicycle,foot, or vehicle. Although the Orange County Sheriffs Department is charged with patrolling the area,visits by law enforcement are infrequent and occur only on request. The land is essentially unpatrolled, uncontrolled, and unregulated. It is, in short, some forty acres of"no - man's -land" where anything goes, and the destruction is getting worse every year. Since January of 2001 a photographic record of the damage and illegal activities has been compiled and is presently available for viewing at the Bolsa Chica Conservancy. Many items recovered from the wetlands and the state wilderness land are also kept at the Conservancy as evidence of the destructive activities which occur on a daily basis. The director of the Conservancy, Adrienne Morrison, is only one of many people affiliated with the Bolsa Chica Wetlands who are concerned about the proposed Shea project. If the development is allowed to proceed, more people will be living in the area adjacent to the wetlands and the state wilderness. The addition of 171 homes at the the main entrance to the state lands will add nearly 1.000 residents and perhaps 50.100 dogs to the area, and the addition of a public park will only serve to bring in even more people.Holidays, parties, and visiting friends and relatives will also increase the number of people entering the lands. Common sense dictates that as with the existing surrounding neighborhoods, many of the people in the Shea Homes development will use the state land and wetlands for recreational activities, both legal and illegal.Walls and fences around the proposed development will not prevent people from gaining access to the wetlands or the wilderness lands due to the number and location of entry points. The damage and destruction that is presently occurring will only get worse -MUCH WORSE- should Shea Homes be allowed to proceed with construction. Enclosed are three lists of the known activities and some of the items found on the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and state wilderness areas. Also enclosed is a list of some of the species which will be most affected by the proposed development and are known to inhabit the wetlands and state land.The California State Department of Fish & Dame and the State Land Commission are aware of the problems occurring, and both entities are concerned. The H.B. Planning Commission should be likewise concerned and and not allow this project to continue. Sincerely, D.H. UST OF SPECIES LOST AFFECTED BY DEVELOPNENT OF SHFA HONES PROPERTY Alligator Lizard White Tailed Kite* Western Fence Lizard Kestrel* Side Blotched Lizard Coopers Hawk* Gopher Snake Ferriginous Hawk* California King Snake* Sharp Shinned Hawk* Western Pacific Rattlesnake* Red Shouldered Hawk* Raccoon Red Tailed Hawk* Shrew Northem Harrier* Gopher Peregrine Falcon* Cottontail Rabbit Turkey Vulture* Common Ground Squirrel Barn Owl* Opossum Great Homed Owl* Striped Skunk Great Egret* Coyote Great Blue Heron* * Indicates species which enjoy State and/or Federal protection from hunting, capture, and disruption of habitat including foraging and breeding grounds.The Shea Homes project will bring 1,000 people or more into direct contact with an environmentally sensitive area which is home to numerous protected birds and a wide variety of animals upon which they feed.The state wilderness area and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands are presently under assault from human encroachment and interference from the surrounding neighborhoods and beyond. ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD OF 171 HOLES WILL ONLY EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM AND LEAD TO FURTHER DESTRUCTION OF HABITAT AND WILDLIFE. The animals and vegetation of the wetlands and state lands have a tough enough time surviving as it is - there is no need to make it worse by destroying what little wilderness remains. It is simply unethical, immoral, and illegal. Period. A USABLE,ITEMS >=OUND/RETRIEVED Pickax Saw w/3-Blade Assortment(new) Branch Cutters Nachine-sharpened Screwdriver(awl) Phillips-head Screwdriver Shovels&Spades(26 and counting) (2)Wheelbarrows 30'Locking Tape measure Roll of Speaker Wire Portable Air Pump (plugs into car lighter) Pump-Sprayer (2)Gasoline Safety Jugs Nen's Wristwatch Basketballs Tennis Balls(hundreds) Golf Balls Baseballs/Softballs Soccer Balls Volleyball Handballs Beach Ball 'Squish"Balls(for swimming pools) (2)Golf Clubs (5-iron&9-iron) Towels (beach, bath,and hand) Canned Food (beans and soup) Hockey Mask Sunglasses(multiple) Bicycle Helmet Assorted Pens and Pencils Squirt OUR Bottle of Bubbles (2) Plastic Food Trays (NcDonald's) 12"x 6"x I"Landscaping Bricks(multiple) Hooded Sweatshirt and Knitted Sweater Sweaters and Jackets Skateboard Glass Baking Dish Uve Agapanthus and Ice plant Box of 2"Nails (2) Heavy Duty Claw Hammers Adjustable Wrench 250' Heavy Duty Aluminum Foil Bottle of Rubbing Alcohol Can of Stemo (cooking fuel) 24"x 33" Nirror Queen Sized Reversible Comforter Plastic (joggles "Naked Lady"Flower Bulbs (70 lbs.worth) 'A NON-USABLE UNS ABANDONED/DUNPED Mangled Biqyde Dishwasher Bathtub Xmas Tree w/Plastic.Stand Sleeping Bags(mumpie) Boots &Shoes(muifiiple-sungies&pairs) Caps,Pants,Shirts,&Shorts Broken Fluorescent Tube Light Underwear(boxers and briefs-dozens) Women's Thong Panty Motor(lde Battery Trust CDkMeather Battery Butane Ughtas(hundreds) Roads Clips Rolling Papers(for"Joints'e Rubber Host,Spoon,&Syringe(for I.V.drug use) Tom Blankets,sheets,towels Heavy-knit Throw Quilt(multiple) (4)Garden Hose Bade-pack w/Motor Oil and Funnel (3)Broken Wheelbarrow (2)CasscttdCD Player/Stereo Boom Box Portable Cassette Player Broken Shovels,Cement Rake,Push Broom Sheet Plywood(many-5 x 5 to 5'x a) Broken Hollow-core Doors Atttictk Supporter SUV/T"nrdt Side View Mirrors Traffic Cones and Pillars (2)A-Frame Road Hazard Marker w/Ltght Hard-Core Pornographic Magazines Used GDndoms "Used"Toilet Paper Engine Blocks and Crank Case w/Oil 8 Ibs.Rusty Nals(ail sizes) Tires(mulliple-hich and auto) Rusted Boat Trailer (2)"Dime"Baggie of Marijuana Bicycle Tires,inner Tubes,Broken Chains Broken Patio Table Wheel Covers Broken Telephone 2-Scat Sofa Rusted IndustriaV011 Drum Rusted Water Heater Book Bags &Duffel Bags (3)Full-Size Mattresses Spark Plugs(vehicle and motorLVO Sports Balls(various) Window Blind&Mesh Screen (2)Grocery Carts Broken A-Frame Ladder Spent Fireworks/Road Flare Broken Umbrellas(patio and personae Bubble Wrap Sheeting Cleocadre GPS'Trcasurc Box" Shotgun Shells,BB's(thousands) (2)Ice Chests/Coglers Marge Silver Tarp Prescription Medication Gas Tank Rolled Chain Unk Fence and Broken Gates Rusted/Broken Toaster Oven Broken Basketball Backboard Rotisserie Grill Banana Lounge Broken Plastic Lawn Chair Old Computer Equipment (3)Dream Catchers Broken B/W Tekvislon Helium Balloons Paint Bail Propellant Canisters(dozens) (M'Wmum 5)Landscaping Dump Sites: Constnrcfion Dump Sites(multiple): (Live agapan►thus,ice plant,various (dry wall,briers,cinder blocks,asphalt. dead plants,palm tree conduit,PVC.concrete btociis,assorted trimmings,live Pampas Grass) lumber,steel pipes,roofing tiles,etc) Pius Assorted Trash Including But Not Umited To: Styrofoam cups,plates,popcorn,&trags,plastic bags and bottles, broken toys,glass bottles(beer&hard liquor),beer and soda cans,match books,foam padding,large and small batteries, cardboard boxes,paper trash,plastic packaging and straws,food wrappers,paint cans(sprag and liquid), large plastic buckets,fiber fill,empty motor oil jugs,plastic rope,wooden palettes,books,disposable diapers,cigarette butts,rusted steel pipes and valves,various unidentifiable Junk,human excrement,and dog poop. NOTE Many of the above listed items have been retrieved and disposed of,and some have been saved as evidence of the ongoing problems endemic to the area.Many other items remain where they were odgnaily dumped The rest of them have disappeared into the underbrush or have been intentionally relocated for use in a variety of prohibited activities. 1 BEHAVIOR/ INCIDENTS KNOWN TO OCCUR BY EYEW I1 ESS OR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF DISCOVERY • UPROOTING,STOMPING AND TWISTING OFF AT BASE OF PLANTS AND SAPLING TREES • SAVING,CHOPPING AND BREAKING OF LIVE TREE AND BUSH BRANCHES. LIMBS.AND TRUNKS • UNLEASHED DOGS RUNNING AMOK,CHASING AMMALS, DIGGING OUT BURROWS,AND KILLING WILDLIFE • FEEDING OF COYOTES(DOG CHOW.PIZZA. FRENCH FRIES, HOT DOGS.BREAD.SAUSAGES.PORK& BEff CUTS. ETC.) • FEEDING OF RABBITS AND SQUIRRELS(RAW CELERY, LETTUCE.CARROTS,NUTS,TOMATOES.ETC.) • PAINT BALL/BB GUN WARS AND CONSTRUCTION OF"BLINDe FROM TORN BRANCHES,TRASH.DUMPED ITEMS • SPRAYING/POURING GASOLINE ON NATIVE VEGETATION TO CREATE NEW TRAILS AND RE-MOVE"OBSTACLES" • OFF ROAD RIDING BY TRUCKS.SUVS, DUNE BUGGIES, MOTORIZED SCOOTERS.AND MOTORCYCLES HAS CREATED LARGE AREAS OF DENUDED WETLAND,COWACT ED EARTH,DEEPLY RUTTED ROADS. AND V/IDELED FOOTPATHS. ' REMOVAL/DESTRUCTK)N/BURYNG OF SIGNS INDICATING PROTECTED WETLAND AREAS AND"NO TRESPASSING" • CUI-TING AND BENDING OF CHAIN-LINK FENCING - CUTTNG AND REMOVAL OF PADLOCKS AND GATE a-IAm • HUNTING OF REPTILES FOR PETS.SALE,AND TO KILL "JUST FOR FUN" EKING SNAKES GOPHER SNAKES. RATTLE SNAKES, LP-IRDS> • DIGGING OF TRFJVCHEs.PITS.BUILDING OF"MOGULS"FOR BICYCLE RIDING ON UNPROTECTED STATE LAMS AND BoLsA CMCA WETLANDS • DESTRUCTION/THEFT OF OCCUPIED BIRD NESTS • TRANSIENT CAMPING(14 STIES LOCATED.OCCUPIED SPORADICALLY SPRING THROUGH FALL) • RAMPANT LITTERING • HUMAN DEFECATION AND URINATION • SIXUAL INTERCOURSE - MASTURBATION • PORN VIDEO FILMING AND PORNOGRAPHIC STILL PHOTOGRAPHY SESSIONS • VANDALOATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY PROPERTY • VANDALLZATKMI/G AFFm PANTING OF EUCALYPTUS TREES AND AERO OIL COMPANY PROPERTY • BURYING OF DECEASED FAMILY PETS • TRESPASSING BY CLIMBING FENCE DIRECTLY N FRONT OF NO TRESPASSING"SIGNS • BEER AND HARD Ln="PARTES" ' CONSTRUCTION OF A"HUT"FROM CHOPPED TREE BRANCHES AND TIED TOGETHER WITH ROPE • FIRES-MAJOR AND MINOR(UNKNOWN IF ACCIDENTAL OR INTENTIONAL) • WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF WILDLIFE AND HABITATS • ILLEGAL DRUG USE(MARIJUANA.COCAINE, INTRAVENOUS DRUGS); GROWING OF MARIJUANA PLANTS • ILLEGAL FIRING OF SHOTGUN/BB/PELLET/PAINTBALLGUNS AND SLINGSHOTS • DUMPING OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL. COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPING REFUSE,BROKEN/UNWANTED HOUSEHOLD& 1 AUTOMOTIVE ITEMS • ILLEGAL FISHING IN THE BOLSA CHIcA kmR BAY • DRNING GOLF BALLS INTO SENSITIVE WETLAND HABITAT AND EUCALYPTUS GROVES • UNDERMINING OF FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL BY DIGGING BICYCLE RAMPS WITH SHOVELS • CONSTRUCTION OF"FORTS"/ "CLUBHOUSES" FROM PLYWOOD, LUMBER.TREE BRANCHES, LOGS, AND BUSHES • FILMING OF PAINTBALL WARS AND BICYCLE MOGUL RIDING • PUBLary PHOTO SHOOT OF PROFESSIONAL OFF-ROAD MOTORCYCLES AND RIDERS ON WETLAND AREA • PORTRAIT PHOTOGRAPHY ON VET-LAND AREAS USING EUCALYPTUS TREES AS BACKGROUND • READING AND HIDING OF HARD-CORE PORNOGRAPHY • INTERNET LISTED US "TREASURE HUNTING" • "HASHER" JOGGING CLUB PLACING TALC & CHALK MARKINGS ON WETLANDS AND EVERY ROAD, PATH.AND TRAIL THROUGHOUT STATE LAND AREA, INCLUDING FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL AND EUCALYPTUS GROVES. • CONSTRUCTION OF TREE SWING/TRAPEZE • OFF-ROAD RIDING OF DUNE BUGGY ON WETLANDS AND OTHER STATE LANDS • SHOOTING OFF FIREWORKS ON W/ETI.ANDS AND ALSO IN DRY BRUSH OF EUCALYPTUS GROVES (ROMAN CANDLES. FOUNTAIN CONES, FIRE CRACKERS.BOTTLE ROC(ETS,ETC.) C�7 ATTAQHM ENT 4 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration 17451 Hillgate,Huntington Beach,CA 92649-4707 - 714-625-0876 -www.bixby.org/parkside September 19, 2002 City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning RECEIVED CEI` ED Planning Commission SEP 19 2002 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Parkside Estates Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to you regarding various Parkside Estates issues that remain unresolved as we head into the September 24 continuation meeting. We believe that the EIR should not be certified at this time because of multiple serious deficiencies. Furthermore,if these deficiencies are someday corrected and the EIR is eventually certified,there are various changes we would like to see in the conditions for the project. 1 . Justification for Re-opening the Public Hearing Although the public hearing was closed at the conclusion of the Parkside agenda item on September 10 , we feel the hearing needs to be re-opened on September 20 due to the following reasons: • Distribution of the September I O'h staff reports was botched and they did not appear in the HB central library until Monday September 9"'. Several residents attempted to view the staff reports at the library over the preceding weekend but were unsuccessful because the reports were not yet available at the Reference desk. • The updated traffic study was released on September 9th, leaving insufficient time for thoughtful public analysis prior to the September I O b public hearing. • There was significant new California Coastal Commission and Rivertech water quality correspondence released on September 9ffi and 10t', leaving insufficient time for thoughtful public analysis prior to the September 10'h public hearing. • Planning Commissioners had many unresolved questions at the conclusion of the September IOth public hearing, and asked that staff provide answers in writing. The public needs a chance to review these same answers and to comment on any errors or omissions therein. 2. Problems with the September 9, 2002 Traffic Study While it is gratifying to see that our concerns with the stale traffic data in the July 2002 Final EIR were taken seriously enough to warrant the new traffic study dated September 9, 2002, the timing and content of this new study raise some significant new issues that we believe allow us to challenge the validity of this new study,too. 2.1 Some Data Collected BEFORE School Resumed The appendix section of the new traffic report contains Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) summary sheets on page 16 and 18 showing that Graham&Warner intersection data was collected on August 29,2002,which is BEFORE the start of the Marine View academic calendar. Since peak traffic conditions in this area are driven by Marine View, collecting any data when school is not in session will produce an undercount not representative of typical peak conditions. 2.2 Holiday Week Traffic Counts Atypical The new traffic study counted cars on Graham Street on Wednesday September 4th and Thursday September 5th which fall in the short post-Labor Day holiday work week. It is the traditional end of summer vacation period,with families traveling out of the area(and not driving theirs cars on Huntington Beach streets). We assert that counting cars under the lighter than normal traffic conditions of the 4-day post- Labor Day work week has produced an undercount not representative of typical peak conditions. 2.3 School Enrollment Takes a Few Weeks to Ramp Up According to Sharon Tugwell of OVSD Financial Services, school enrollment slowly increases during the first few weeks as clueless parents realize that school has resumed, as families return from summer vacations, and as new students transfer in from year-round districts with differing academic calendars. Because of this variability,the district will not even bother collecting their first official enrollment statistics for 2002 until September 27th. Therefore, any traffic study(such as this one)that measures traffic on the first two days of school will likely produce an undercount not representative of typical peak conditions. y. z 2.4 HCM Summary Sheet Intersection Delay Times Suspect The HCM summary sheets in the appendix contain delay times for the Graham& Glenstone intersection. However, due to the impaired sightlines from where the human traffic counters were parked on the south side of the Wintersburg bridge,it would have been impossible to see the trailing,northernmost edge of the queue of Graham cars waiting to turn left onto Glenstone. If you cannot see the end of the queue,you cannot accurately.measure the queue delay time. The arrow in the following photograph indicates the position where the human traffic counters were dangerously and illegally parked in the bike lane in a no-parking zone on the Wintersburg bridge: R� .. ti�;.,r4c- n L' 't.4.•�T: :f^ — i�:;iea .£'`.Ya.(°�'� "iM1 , '�^e, "��I'+� ��x5���w!t`--,.,,i;i;a,.,..w� ���•@::;;s;�•.�;.�y'K.r=q,s „��, xr-�.''�5,��`'+�-u'.:.a^Cie >L �', '��.u',;>^�'�Y�c'`�*+-�-�,','��s�aa�x }� .��`,sn,• •�.�s,-• '�-,*xi,.3`�,ttF.i���,"-;q '�i3':'r'^'��� - 4.Y,`ri.3'Y�� .. � ,T. .e � ����,• s`k� �'d(:�^ f•;�,,�`?>>''�• �PARKI11G1s ;wr.,1 .e s y,.,�� � 'ST 5 �..�.. ,Xa 4•a. :S:�YSsii}v:.. -_H .-�3Y5:.-ti�iaiiii...i!_�4•^'+^c-^�. '.ti.:i't.' Because the parking location was on the down slope of the bridge,the top of the bridge impedes the sightlines that would be required to see the end of the left turn queue. y- � The following photograph shows what a driver parked in the above location would see when looking in the rear view mirrer: t f, Note that the above photograph is of a reflection in the driver's rear view mirror of the author's Camry, and so Kenilworth is on the right hand side out of sight below the crest of the bridge. We also cannot see the point on Graham between the top of the bridge and Kenilworth where the end of the Glenstone left turn queue forms. If you cannot see the end of this queue,you cannot properly compute the intersection delay times. 2.5 Unrealistic Benefits from Restriping Comparing HCM summary sheet pages 36 and 40 shows that the applicant believes their Graham restriping"mitigation"will reduce the Marine View drop-off delay from 29.45 seconds (likely too low—see item 2.4 above) down to 13.46 seconds. This is an absolutely fraudulent claim, because Marine View drop-off drivers are already driving in the same imaginary left turn median that the applicant proposes to paint on the road. Since restriping would simply mirror existing behavior, there will be no major change in intersection delay time. 2.6 Summary The September 2002 traffic study confirms that existing traffic is indeed worse than depicted in the July 2002 Final EIR. It is worth noting to compare the Graham& Glenstone AM peak HCM summary sheets for the 1997 and 2002 "existing plus project" cumulative conditions (pages 28 and 36). We see that southbound Graham turning left onto Glenstone has degraded from LOS B down to LOS D. Since LOS D is considered to be the minimum acceptable Level of Service, it is important to redo the traffic study in a manner safe from accusations of undercounting. Perhaps an accurate count will show the true condition to be LOS E (i.e. unacceptable). I • � 3. A Rebuttal to Dick Harlow Regarding Graham & Neargate The applicant's lobbyist,Dick Harlow, conveniently gave the last public comment on September 10d'without any opportunity for rebuttal. Harlow asserted that since the Neargate tract west of Graham and south of Slater doesn't experience any traffic-related problems with their single entrance/exit,then the similar-sized Parkside project won't experience (or cause) any traffic problems either with their single entrance/exit at"A"street. This laughable statement is basically comparing apples to orangutans, completely ignoring the .fact that these two intersection environments are totally different.. First, the 2002 edition of Thomas Bros. Maps shows the Parkside segment of Graham to be arterial,whereas the Neargate segment is non-arterial: bLL UK T© sca R� z p DR ¢ Artenal i T'LAZA Ltd o f. 6NbY P7ur� a.7s z „„ FR1 cc Dot x .- S ALE x r. i ,�. ia`�� fu' pe[S ► 1R; t 4 Non-arterial j @ E r Obisty au �t(?l# ES OR os-1 •� ` ��. t � IIQ �iit"'-Ku w�+. .�.�...".--fir d EL -DR; s� tg L. E#t ?It mny Second, Graham dead-ends south of Neargate. Thd only traffic on this segment of Graham is from Neargate or Ridgebury residents; there is no through traffic:. . a Not a through street Third, the Graham traffic volumes and congestion are much, much higher at "A" street that at Neargate. The following photograph shows what southbound Graham morning peak traffic looks like at"A"street: is L j .F .'W ary 4. Implications of the Coastal Commission/Rivertech Letters The September I Wh Rivertech letter on water quality is interesting(and be sure to reread the September 9 h Coastal Commission letter that prompted the Rivertech letter). Basically it confirms the Coastal Commission's assertion that the CDS technology specified in the 1998 report (EIR Volume IIA) is nowhere near the claimed 90% efficiency rating. The letter then refers to the 2002 water quality addendum(also EIR Volume IIA), saying they promise to do future.specified BMPs(Best Management Practices), and come up with an as yet unwritten Urban Runoff Management Plan prior to issuance of the grading permit What we have here is confirmation of the"leading edge vs. bleeding edge" scenario contained in my long PowerPoint presentation(see hft-//www.bi&by.org//parkside/multimedia.htnl). CDS was leading edge in 1998,but had a very skimpy track record with only 9 installations in the USA. And what do you know,with the passage of time a track record developed for CDS that seriously failed to live up to the manufacturer's hype. Thus instead of"the leading edge",we find ourselves at"the bleeding edge". Shea/Rivertech (and likely Public Works too)became aware of this problem, and wrote the 2002 water quality addendum that appears in EIR Volume IIA (hgp://www.bi&by.org However, this little document only talks about adding extra BMPs and promising to create an URMP in order to meet standards. NOTE THAT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FAILINGS OF THE CDS TECHNOLOGY IN THIS SECTION OF THE EIR. This little tidbit would have remained hidden were it not for the Coastal Commission's September 9th letter. I guess you could say the EIR is covering up the CDS unit's problems. If I was a planning commissioner, I might be a little peeved about that! All sides agree that CDS is not sufficient. Hence the creation of the"treatment train" described in the 2002 addendum. And if you read the very last paragraph of the September 1 Oth Rivertech letter, it says they are "currently investigating the use of sand filters for treating urban runoff'. So they're not even finished yet specifying the structural BMPs! Not to mention that future URMP that hasn't even been written yet. How is it even possible that a project like Parkside--which hasn't finished its structural water quality design and hasn't finished creating its management plan for dealing with urban runoff-- is up for approval? If the Planning Commission approves this project on September 24th, it will be really only approving on the basis of vague water quality promises. What has been completed at this point in time will not meet water quality standards. Beware of promises from applicants who omit bad news from EIRs. The City should use its maximum leverage that only exists in the pre-approve/deny stage to get the applicant to really and truly commit to what their plans are going to be for ensuring that our local water quality isn't harmed by this project. �• 7 L T."'.1, �:,a •)� i�; ,•ram '1-z•.•��-.= .._.l:-i.i:.•• a� �"�-�-':,-: .- k'. . •�. i r•. �� l" 13}-'`' �!?•y^. Ci tl.''1.L*.: tf rb - +>1 J r . + •.ty; - , •r w - • t.Jf F t11 be 7 •• --,ly_ � �1r4t r� :..+pf:.. �. �("'.1�"�� -�� '�r;}.r,,{�t�'-� !'�:b3� qq r •��y1 +�;�T"�!� �� �- +..',e. _ `� "'ems" �i 1�'a'3�+����r��i44�v !�� •'r1~. � �i +6.-r i ` '�� i•:k. ,� f • Via„-..r,K�' ,Cy�sl:l'S';�y+��'' 1•:�",;.��`L "'rL� Ypv'+�# ti T,_..��. _- •1' � �r �c wz J. may' ) /a - r' ,.�` i 'ter. �fiv ti ♦, Y ,-_ate.yir )r f "0. t y 1 � f 5 Y '• '. � -ii rift ��... "•a. a �1 � 7'+.F ',����?s'1 it ,,T� c __:5 i IGi iliihM�'��i ly{�''f � "^....t.,:'�Y �.. •a.�5� ..A`�; ?c'' - L>�>_p'kr Y - �.'trr TVA 1- �tr.'J0ohm �,tb�7 113Jit. { s n,t ,Jf r !d e r,z• - 3 T�I,t tt f j�. .I "town E F y y3 f Itt lTv.� r•--y� - J `111�. �'tiy Cr)r I.0 � .Rj Ye,f�, 7 ty�' 3 ( r >/ / r��•5 Y ''!,. � `•�tffi}�r�rt�t( 1'r t^i �,'1! i 1+14jt '- xf� t 1F ( ! �, + - � ��L .�tt+uT�1g;�. ><f ? d r! + I r.� t;�>1 a'r+t ,�. t j� [ 4 11 c v, _ _ i '�i�:FA �pt�•+�l rlJ t..✓': � 1 Ps`1`rtl Jrs ,yic JtSl�1 ! ifl ni r � i 1.: 11. 'FT',s !v Jr + } ,ttt;��> f./firs r<i� �r+�'��1i��4(t'�f 5�f�7 c'17.{:t{�� 7 [ t _ Jt ttr v'} ���f- ✓��, i-. { +, !}. �, f t fy" r f'r1'�i i 1.� I s � � K --r r s r( �1'4 -�•'�: 1' .t ,`J; ftf�arr F.h f x�vrr I�ct/raj.;E J out �r� L +7 ri i * r t,y K �, s snr• i�/� St 7 rF f .r }�'t 1[11�t �� t r r� r1 �< J T :�• �� y 3 i�kt'( rr17L • ' J �`� ,'Jt�� .f ` ut.;;y' .,�,:•�:, 1.,(:i� ( �. - c .. 2ltF tr y-�.�-. �wj' r "}t if�y4j•...a •i C, 2{.i ��� Lzt jL ;'+ a! =i 1�' �-}r•.r� 1st i:i V'':� 1 7 . 4" t , atm.AP � ij f irt{�,IsL fi._'ti l` t:�,t-{�tr r�lt �.) rirt' lu� -y .1 }��r Y�E l�j Er7r„ri;}t.t"1 f"/'. ,. F r_.s r.; F! F� �- ) ff .1 HJ,J �• 1 ti J,1. t �1rl`a f�..r{ 'tttf t .✓I- n�•` C r-�ti ♦ f r (r [-h- l,s"�>' a• 3 V f+ •T `, i 1 ie�lJJr 'I I 3t.if�'3J,. it.. —a r + _ j r - JAW now � skill \ t:i !:( s t i6 -! 7F J -d.FM � ri r • + ip r • r _ Zi;S'l� dr fit. )y'ji {; �'}' It•.s ,[� 1 � t - rti, � � tv7` +^ f., 'R i � � -rl t � , f�; �[' y 1.X i ` f, ��! r�r�r' 1 tL� /'"� !�,[,�4 ,�,'I;r;is f r i p, • f '�'_! �� ,•+� .t{ � ) + �`1�It>'.,•�' ° ?I � F t ri''{' R r S t -ko t } } �5 ri ..�^t)raY � n .i(?`f�11�75 tiS,•1 if5-`. �If7'r.�C)msl-;{l Yt,^(, {f.,^rntjf�x �(.,., ,.0�j(.•) kltln�r.._t n�.1}V:tyti.t`,I y'+n .rr. i. ON 9. WA(Q SIS VIA • \ ' • • • 1 " \ ' ' 1 1 • " r � � � t a rR.• r2 S ,C E� ,f � 1 , .� j -�!; \ � ���a.Y 1, ,:,: � � C� ¢ a't' {` It��ii ri i•'r ! } �y.tl r,-•l �� I.J `� Ji J; r r' 1j�, 'I u F � � ie I p f5 S t- r rar� •�,17 { 4 4 I "�-`r:-..� r r - IJ Jr 'iJ lu �FtI r ¢°rl � a r//.�rn J � •�,yyyy �� x .. J ,� r �� �,�. �j'.. I!>,{ir lt�!� 1 r� t•1�tY J !a � J J .J � _J� 1y� 1 Jt �r �a�ar A rl rN.9-� 1 r�a j.,r t�iJ 9 , / Y'(1/ ,,Sla rt 7 ;1� k! r ,{ f c f •J r. yJ'. !/ fS f`rN> ( F. t y { !t / !l� .�i Y I .� _ � , �. �r 11 f4 .I. J n �1.f1`r AA _ �lF•� (x '.E !�' r r ,J:r rrrlr+.''J.(l crtr7��r14^I•.t'.� r r rk�j } ;� 7�'11 •}�, F �'hiF} 1 r rt t t e , 1. (�, r )r',is ,..• ¢p J 7 �', � k r' )� Jl L - ! I ,J ,t I y rjJr f S, /J xa Id•, >zK e 1 : �¢¢99 I�`J, 7• r � r,fj R 41, �fi '7� ip• r frl r r6/ � r� �.-a - Y s j r, J �+.>• ,� ...• a^'�"� Zr .� f �� J - ^I s t r�++ M F iF1 .J.�1 I , •�i r '.l cW i..� �, P f.•r-� - r Y`.' r.. .r,Tltrri t � �J ; -' ' � _.{Y J f rr ; .(.!(+d j 7j C�4 J r YJIr I ylr x C rl�J•'� 4,0��JJ r}7fC r -t .f. r� �r. ✓71 I` F`(,4'S F/r ' r.' E J'{�5} `t, ,';X" F t {l r ty Z ,�.{ ✓iy / f '�-� eNh. i.Ir J✓ � k rJ .r / / .. t f '� � k .•r r r A r.'YC`.�.,', w•j i f r 7 +15 �l .r^' y ,, 7Yi i�I ` /F'{ QIC'(c.�1 'J.J= t� E"Z, 'Y f , 1}_, 1 k� f p r^�S; c• Y f} J•� f �.. f � C r '" 1 r IL ,UL/ I ,jj'.�' @p) .. �, .!��`�>t v r�✓ 6� ,J 317y{�rJfis I-.ir.jlfJ`1tjrr/� F1�1't��+�n4 YS r` F'r{f J7 �a � � � '. f s�.r F'FR nt„�"{' .J.! 1 i 1 ���F• .Rx {�-j��f 'r r wl r:� , a :! �(.�r` ( R{J ,+ x! , J �e i f ,fie q�I�• �e � t`^r F: n r -�i q 7t �, --y: { J. ,y a.a r^,� �� a r: F ;,�, � { -•� „ s) k. 1 I Sr 7Jr x / �• ( pe(� Ir -11: �r Via! r �'� r .rT yt r - T • �p''��• li:i.vt�"Z,}a� nf`,r. �fi J' ,1 .4:•.�"; F�',.p. L �j''�• ,.4 �?✓+i �� r.? �ti nii, ?v ` !'�`"'!�c,lr�rEry J✓' a°/.7.•'jY',� � �p ,. i � e .�= 1 L� .ny�,,,CT�`R>•��t'q�a��A�/^e^+p i4i » .,.n.�:^b ++. - Mc^.'?<:,*r�ri�.1..' -++.`Y' ,^ ... �(y ,.r14� - .Fz•''^"' .'.. - ''ke`h _''i�„ ,»�t,'� F+yta�+'�i �''3�+ �,3;. 'Y'< ,z 'ems 8� "'`d�k- ^Oe�I• ^��,'� t° r� � A .: 1 ,� F} - Yet despite the best efforts of the applicant,the land reasserts its true wetlands nature, resulting in a tractor becoming stuck for several weeks in a large lake: The best 164 of these images are available on a companion CDROM labeled"Shea Ponding Vol. I". Filenames use YYMMDD date-based prefixes to tell you when each photograph was taken. This free CDROM is available upon request from the author. Planning Commissioners should have received a copy in their Planning Commission agenda packets. 7. EIR Deficiencies We believe the July 2002 Final EIR is fatally deficient as currently written and should not be certified. 7.1 Traffic 7.1.1 Graham Restriping as a Fraudulent Mitigation The EIR proposes restriping Graham Street between Warner and Slater with a left turn median in order to mitigate the traffic increase caused by this project. We find this to be a fraudulent mitigation because today's Graham drivers already use this entire segment of Graham as a de- facto left turn median. Painting some new stripes on the road merely recognizes existing driver behavior and will not reduce the extra congestion caused by this project,particularly at Glenstone. A genuine mitigation that would truly help Graham would be to install a signal at the intersection with Glenstone. However, the EIR does not consider this option. 01 7.1.2 Kenilworth Left Turn Impact Omitted The EIR asserts that adding a signal at the project's"A" street intersection with Graham will have no negative impact on traffic circulation. This patently absurd statement ignores the extreme length of the southbound Graham queue waiting to turn left at Glenstone. Adding a signal at"A" street will guarantee that this queue extends northward from the new signal so that it will block cars trying to exit from Kenilworth to turn left onto Graham. This impact is not acknowledged in the EIR,nor are any mitigations offered. 7.1.3 September 9th 2002 Traffic Study Flawed The updated traffic study contains numerous flaws that invite charges of undercounting. The loyal opposition thanks you for giving us so many easy things to challenge. 7.2 DrainageNydrology The EIR assumes that no County permit will be needed to install the additional pumps at the. Slater Pump Station,but dedicated work by the loyal opposition has prompted the County to say that a permit WILL BE REQUIRED. The EIR does not consider the impacts of any conditions the County will impose on this permit, including but not limited to stilling well throttle-back sensors or on-site detention facilities. Some of these possible conditions have the potential to invalidate the current FEMA CLOMR,which in turn could alter the amount of fill required for this project to meet flood insurance regulations. The applicant has agreed that seeking a County permit is acceptable, and we ask that this be REQUIRED as a condition of this project. Due to the potential significant impacts involved in seeking such a permit,a dialog must be started with the County and additional analysis performed before this EIR can be certified. 7.3 Water Quality The EIR does not analyze the negative water quality impacts resulting from the increased pumping of the Slater Pump Station that will occur due to the project's runoff being dumped into the Slater Channel. The Slater Channel is highly polluted and this project will cause that pollution to enter the Wintersburg Channel more frequently,eventually flowing down into Bolsa Chica and Huntington Harbour. Please see my attached letter dated September 13t , 2002, that I sent to the Coastal Commission regarding this issue. As the September 1 Och Coastal Commission letter points out,the water quality impact of this project upon Bolsa Chica and Huntington Harbour is not addressed. Furthermore, the EIR does not analyze moving the 2 new storm pumps to the northern side of the Wintersburg Channel as an alternative drainage method that would directly connect to the Wintersburg without first passing through the polluted Slater Channel,thus yielding superior water quality. There is a passage hidden in EIR Volume IIA in the 1998 water quality report on page 4-1 that reads: "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." The water quality impacts and the odors discussed above conveniently do not appear within the main impact sections of the EIR, and neither are any mitigations offered. The water quality section of the EIR is ultimately based on vague promises to do future work in order to meet standards. Vague promises of future planning should not be a substitute for completed planning in the early stages that can be evaluated during the approval process. 7.4 Noise The EIR discloses the various noise impacts resulting from the construction process,but does not analyze the CNEL noise impact of the haul route scenario that uses Graham if the borrow site is not adjacent. This is a glaring deficiency in and of itself and is made worse by the fact that the September 2002 traffic study shows substantially more cars on Graham today. Sound impacts are cumulative, and the impact of added haul truck traffic on top of today's busier Graham traffic simply hasn't been analyzed. Additionally, the project site is located directly under the landing flight path for Long Beach Municipal Airport and/or Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center. There is a daily mix of various jet types flying overhead,ranging from smaller executive jets to commercial air cargo carriers(i.e. FedEx,etc)to gray, lumbering military behemoths. The commercial air cargo jets fly low enough to make out the corporate logo on the aircraft's tail. CNEL was designed to measure airport noise impacts,but curiously the EIR omits all mention of airport noise for both the existing and developed conditions. 7.5 Public Safety Given that the Fire Department is only confident(but not certain)that Edwards Station will be capable of meeting response time criteria(within 5 minutes 80% of the time) for the area,we feel that the EIR does not adequately address the impacts to existing residents of amending the General Plan to remove the current fire station designation from the applicant's property. The EIR also didn't consider a development alternative incorporating a fire station within the project boundaries. Loyal opposition driving tests to the southernmost existing homes in this area strongly suggest that the Fire Department's confidence of meeting the 5-minute response time standard is rather dubious,with actual response times.more likely to be as much as 6 minutes for both Edwards Station and the proposed relocated Heil Station. As of this writing(09/19/02),the Fire Department has NOT provided any rebuttal to these unofficial driving tests, either in the form of actual dispatch times or official driving tests all of the way to homes at the southern boundary of the area(rather than just to the intersection of Graham& Slater). 7.6 Egregious Typographical Errors EIR Volume II Section 5.10 page 5-175 asserts that Marine View Middle School is "approximately four(4)miles from the [project] site",when in fact the distance is only 0.4 (four- tenths) miles. If this egregiously erroneous distance of 4 miles was used in any subsequent calculations or analyses,the conclusions are also erroneous. B. Requested Changes in Project Conditions We believe the EIR is deficient and should not be certified. However, if the Planning Commission goes ahead and certifies the EIR anyway,we would like to see the following conditions added to the project: 8.1 Traffic • We request that a condition be added to implement Circulation Alternative B in order to provide a second,tract entrance/exit to Bolsa Chica Street that will reduce the project's impact on Graham Street. • We request that a condition be added to fund the installation of a signal at the intersection of Graham&Glenstone to be completed by the time the occupancy permits are issued for the project. • We request that a condition be added to add"Keep Intersection Clear"striping_and signage to the intersection of Graham and Kenilworth. • We request that a condition be 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. • We request that the condition allowing the connection to Greenleaf to be opened to non- emergency access be contingent upon a City Council public hearing AND a simple_ majority vote by residents living in the tract north of the project site. 8.2 Drainage/Hydrology • We request that a condition be added to REQUIRE seeking a County permit for installation of the 2 new storm pumps being proposed for this project. • We request that a condition be added to establish an "Improvement District" comprised of all parcels within the Parkside project to provide "all 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. The benefits of this alternative are many and obvious: o Dick Harlow has stated that such a configuration will cost the applicant less money to build. o A direct connection to the Wintersburg Channel offers superior water quality because the badly polluted Slater Channel will not experience increased pumping as a result of this project. o Handling significant new runoff with a new, independent pump station offers better public safety because the Slater Pump Station will no longer be a single point of failure. 8.3 Water Quality • We request that this project not be approved until the applicant commits in writing their complete selection of all structural BMPs and the associated URMP.-Water quality is far too important to proceed on vague promises by a group of people whose initial plans were proven insufficient. 8.4 Public Safety • We request that a condition be added to require the funding and construction of a fire station on the project site as per the original General Plan zoning designation if the Fire Department cannot be certain that Edwards Station and relocated Heil Station will meet the city response time criteria for all existing homes in the area and the applicant's new homes. Sincerely, Mark D.Bixby Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration 17451 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 714-625-0876 mark@bixby.org attachment �s/ Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration 17451 Hillgate,Huntington Beach,CA 92649-4707 -714-62.5-0876-www.bixby.org/parkside September 13, 2002 Stephen Rynas,AICP Orange County Area Supervisor California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 RE: Environmental Impact Report 97-2 (Parkside Estates) Dear Mr.Rynas, I have obtained copies of your recent September 96' and I CP letters exchanged with the City of Huntington Beach regarding water quality deficiencies in the Parkside Estates EIR, and I would like to commend the Coastal Commission for its focus on the water quality issues surrounding this project. Unfortunately there is a serious negative water quality impact that has been overlooked so far. The current Parkside storm drainage map (http://www.bixby.org/parkside/documents/EIRNolumeII/exhibit58 jpg) calls for their urban runoff to be.directed into the Slater Channel, and then pumped into the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel. The July 2002 Final EIR does not address the negative water quality impacts that will result from the subsequent increased pumping frequency of the Slater Pump Station that will be required to handle the additional runoff flow from Parkside. The Slater Channel is essentially a linear urban runoff detention lake. During low-flow periods, polluted urban runoff slowly accumulates in the channel until the water surface elevation has risen high enough to warrant activating the low-flow sump pump in the Slater Pump Station which then pumps out the Slater Channel contents into the Wintersburg'Channel. The water that accumulates in the Slater Pump Station forebay area is truly a fetid,polluted stew that has become concentrated through evaporation between pumpings. The water is an unhealthy opaque brown color,with scum and other material floating in it. Bacteriological testing (http://www.bixby.org/parkside/Multimedia/HBPCO20010-Robert Harrison.ppt)shows high levels of coliform and other bacteria. When periodic channel maintenance is performed to remove the accumulated sediments, one of the strongest odors you have ever smelled wafts over the downwind neighborhoods. To make matters worse,the asphalt service road leading to the Slater Pump Station is a popular route for dog walkers heading for the Bolsa Chica lowlands. Dog feces accumulate on this ZY service road directly adjacent to the final reach of the Slater Channel, and the only drainage for this road is directly into the channel itself. Personal observation during my own walks down this road(stepping very carefully!)suggests that due to city budget constraints and the somewhat hidden nature of the feces problem,this service road is never cleaned,and that the feces constantly accumulate until they are washed into the channel by rainstorms. The bottom line is that if the polluted Slater Channel is currently pumped out into the Wintersburg Channel (and downstream to Bolsa Chica and Huntington Harbour)on X days per year,the addition of new Parkside runoff will increase the pumping frequency to greater than X days per year. It is important to note that even if Parkside is able to meet all of the relevant water quality standards for their own runoff via improved structural BMPs and a future Urban Runoff Management Plan, there will still be more frequent Slater Channel pumping than there is today, resulting in additional days of concentrated, accumulated urban runoff being pumped into the Wintersburg Channel. And as I stated above,none of this has been discussed in the July 2002 Final EIR. My fellow Huntington Beach neighbors and I believe that this issue needs further analysis before the EIR can be certified and the project can be approved. Specifically, an alternative drainage plan should be investigated that relocates the Parkside storm drain pumps to the northern side of the Wintersburg Channel in order to pump their urban runoff directly into the Wintersburg Channel without first entering the Slater Channel. This will totally avoid the negative impacts caused by interacting with the existing Slater Channel pollution. Sincerely, -b. -�, Mark D.Bixby Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration 17451 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 714-625-0876 mark@bixby.org AT .TACHMENT 5 IRE September 16, 2002CEIVED �SEP 192002 Jan Shomaker Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Commissioner, We are writing to you regarding the proposed Shea Parkside Estates development. We currently reside at 17101 Greentree Lane which is located in the most northern part of the"Kenilworth"tract.We have lived in this neighborhood for approximately 12 years and have seen many developments(i:e., Meadowlark shopping center and housing tract)come to pass which have greatly influenced our quality of life and, consequently, we have deep concerns about the proposed Parkside Estates development.The most significant and daily impact to us would be traffic.As you know Greentree Lane intersects Warner Ave at the Meadowlark shopping center. Consequently, we are the major thoroughfare for all northern traffic in and out of the tract, and all cars trying to bypass Graham/Wamer. With the proposed development we are deeply worried that traffic would be greatly increased by both current residents in the Kenilworth tract trying to avoid Graham, and by potential traffic if Greenleaf were to be opened at a later date. It should be stressed that with the opening of the shopping center at Meadowlark our traffic has significantly increased and is so bad that at this point we cannot allow our children (ages 2 and 5)to play in the front yard for fear of their saftey. Moreover, we are particularly impacted by the sheer layout of our street which has a significant hill at the top of the street(at Warner), and a somewhat blind comer at the bottom (near our house). Because of the hill, people are constantly speeding to either make it up the hill (for some reason they truly believe this is needed)or as a consequence of coming down the hill. This is made even more dangerous by the comer at the bottom of the hill which has lead to several close-calls for us when backing out of the drive way; I have had several cars since the beginning of this school year almost rear end me and more still who have not waited for me to finish making my turn on backing out and have gone all the way around the front of me (on the opposite side of the street!)on their way up the hill. It is a serious problem now and will only be worsened by additional traffic. We adamantly oppose any potential for Greenleaf to ever be open to regular traffic. Our concern is that without two fully functional exits for the Parkside Estates that the issue of opening the emergency exit will never be fully laid to rest. This concern is not unwarranted because, as rational people, it can be expected that"if you build it, they will come". The potential for more battles between neighboring tracts is something that we (and the other residents of the Kenilworth development) don't want,and the City shouldn't want. At the last Planning Commission meeting (Sept 101h), one of the spoke persons for Shea made some comments about the opening of Greenleaf. One of his comments included a statement that he could show you (the Planning Commission) several developments in the City, in which there were approximately 160 homes, and only one entrance/exit. We would like to Planning Commission to consider the specifics of the Parkside Estates development: a proposed single entrance/exit, which is a"T" intersection and only allows for egression of traffic in two directions-one of which merges with school traffic for Marine View. It doesn't take much common sense to know that without a second exit for the Parkside Estates, and after cars sit idling morning after morning at that intersection,those residents are going to demand something be done. Specifically, that,Greenleaf be opened. We are demanding that you do something to head off this problem now. We would like to feel that our children are safe riding their bikes on their own street and playing in the front yard. If there was any way at this point to turn Greentree Lane into an emergency entrance/exit only we would be the first to support that move-we would love to live on a quiet cul-de-sac. But that does not seem to be possible, so we need to preserve what quality of life that we do have and instill some measures of safety for our children and our neighbor's children. We urge you to please consider this and to open the discussion of requiring the developer to have another entrance through Bolsa Chica Blvd. We realize that the infrastructure changes proposed by Shea would be of great value to the City and to those citizens that would be removed from mandatory flood insurance (some 7000 homes). We would like to commend Shea for doing their homework on this issue and for showing the citizens and the City officials what can be done to make such an improvement for some many people; although we are likely not to reap any benefit ourselves and would remain in a flood zone. We are sure from the City's financial perspective, as any prudent person would think,that it would be wonderful for someone else to pay this bill. But we are concerned that Shea is dangling a big carrot out there and we hope that you can see the benefits of improving the infrastructure and the proposed housing development as two separate things. One does not need to build the homes in order to improve the flood conditions. The infrastructure can be improved separately by the City and without Shea. Lastly,there were a number of other concerns raised at the last Planning Commission meeting (Sept 10'")that we would like to echo. Our preference for this land would be to restore it to what it should be—a wetland. We have always been hopeful that Shea would be a willing seller of the land to allow for this possibility. We are concerned about the sheer volume of work that Shea seems willing to undertake, at their financial expense but at the expense of our homes and quality of life,to"improve'this land and make it build-able (e.g., excavating,water removal, prolonged land filling, compacting, etc). It will be a nightmare for the Kenilworth neighborhood and the surrounding tracts. We urge you to please consider these issues and those that we have not mentioned but were brought up to you at the last public hearing.This has been a long process, and fight,for many residents in our neighborhood.This particular development has many issues that cause concern because it will impact the neighboring homes one way or another. Sincerely, Dr. Julie Lauterborn, Ph. . Mr. Mark J. Flores 17101 Greentree Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714-840-8594 William A. Steele 5382 Glenroy Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 9/20/02 RECEIVED Members of the Planning Commission SEP 2 0 2002 City of Huntington Beach Dear Commissioners: I am writing to you today regarding the Parkside Estates Project. I am very concerned about this project and the negative impacts it will have on the surrounding community. This is truly a case of life imitating art. It is, in fact, a good example of a "Cinderella Story". Only one problem, though, . . .no Cinderella, . . . only ugly step- sisters. At the public hearing on September 10, the applicant, along with his paid "experts" and shills,lamented the fact that they have been working on this project for six years and have invested many hundreds of hours and many thousands of dollars in its development. Apparently they believe this in itself constitutes a reason to approve the project. I would argue,however, that this is testimony to the fact that this is a flawed project which has been beset with problems from the beginning. Alas,just as it was with Cinderella's slipper,no matter how hard they try it will never fit. On the issue of traffic their data is inaccurate and out of date. Furthermore, Mr. Harlow would have us believe that a single point of access and egress is just fine because other developments in Huntington Beach have only one access point. Since when has bad planning been a justification for more bad planning? The ugly truth is that the applicant isn't interested in providing access to Bolsa Chica Road because they do not own the parcels of land necessary to provide such access. On the issues of flooding and subsidence, the applicant,along with his paid "experts" and shills, would have us believe that these problems really aren't problems at all. Don't worry they say. All you have to do is trust us to act in your best interest. In fact, at the September 10 hearing Mr. Harlow stated, "I guess it's a matter of who do you trust." Who do you trust,indeed? Do you trust the professional "experts" who have a vested interest in delivering reports favorable to the applicant? Do you trust Mr.Harlow,former Huntington Beach Planning Director,who was obviously hired for his insider knowledge of city hall? Do you trust the developer, who completes his project and then leaves town? I think not. The citizens in the surrounding community would be wrong to place their trust in any of those people. That's why we have a planning commission. The public trust has been placed in your hands. As one of the speakers at the September 10 meeting pointed out,you are the experts in this matter and it is your responsibility to make a decision which is in the best interest of the entire community. Serious questions remain unanswered with regard to flooding and subsidence. To approve this project could expose the city to potentially catastrophic liability claims. Unfortunately for the applicant,there probably is no way to mitigate this possibility. That is why sixteen years ago D.W.P. representatives assured surrounding property owners that this parcel would never (or should we say should never)be developed. This project is fatally flawed and should not move forward. Whether they work on it for six years or sixty years,like Cinderella's slipper it just doesn't fit. Clearly the E I.I,does not adequate y address these issues and should. therefore: not be certified. To do otherwise would constitute a serious violation of the public trust which has been placed in your hands. Sincerely, V .w .4q• William A.Steele Huntington Beach SEA' 2 3 2002 COMMENTS ON THE EIR FOR SHEA HOMES PROJECT (PARKSIQE ESTATES) WILDLIFE/HABITAT IMPACT REPORT (EIR VOL.115 5-151 -- 5-162)WAS CONDUCTED IN 1997 AND IS FIVE YEARS OUT OF DATE. Wildlife populations and their habitats change constantly when exposed to continuous human interference and encroachment from development. Plant and animal populations/distributions of five years ago are not necessarily the same as they are now, nor will they be the same two years from now when the proposed Shea development is scheduled to break ground. Intrusion and illegal activity has been an ongoing: problem in the sensitive areas for decades and the negative effects from the surrounding communities have devastated large areas of the state land and the wetlands in the previous two years alone, and the past nine months has seen an even greater escalation of the damage to the environment and wildlife. In addition to the older, previously existing housing tracts adjacent to and surrounding the state land and Bolsa.Chica Wetlands, two new neighborhoods have been built in the areas near the Shea Homes property during: the past five years, and the effects of these communities has been noticeable on the aforementioned lands as well (housing developments west of Bolsa Chica/south of Warner and north of Warner/south of Heil behind-the Meadowlark Plaza). It is reasonable and logical to believe the Parkside Estates project will likewise have a substantial negative effect on these sensitive lands and'the wildlife which inhabit them due to the proximity of the proposed project and extreme ease of access. • The EIR did not address the negative effects of the HUMAN FACTOR the Parkside Estates development will have on the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and adjacent state lands;.only the physical construction of the project site was considered.The EIR failed to take into account the very high probability,of destruction, damage, and illegat intrusion by the residents of Parkside Estates on sensitive and protected habitats and the negative impact on the wildlife of the affected areas.The EIR also failed to mention the destructive influence of domestic dogs allowed to roam freely either by intent of the owners or accidental- escape from proper enclosures. Such behaviors from the surrounding neighborhoods and other communities has for years had serious detrimental effects upon the both the wetlands and the state land; another residential development will only make the existing problems worse and accelerate the rate of destruction. More houses = more people & dogs = more intrusion = more damage to sensitive areas = more negative impact on wildlife and habitats. "7F YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME."' /3 � -. (110 n • The EIR biological study took into consideration only the birds, mammals, and invertebrates(insects)which stand to be impacted by the proposed Shea project;THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY REPTILES which will be affected by the development. The state owned land and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands are home to at feast six species of reptiles (three lizards, three snakes) which have already been subjected to negative impact by the residents of previously constructed housing developments in the surrounding areas.The Common King Snake, Gopher Snake, Western Pacific Rattlesnake, Southern Alligator Lizard, Side Blotched Lizard, and Western Fence Lizard are frequently subject to hunting, capture, and killing by the humans and dogs which presently use the state lands for recreation.There is no reason to believe this illegal behavior will not be exhibited by the residents and visitors of Parkside Estates as well. • The EIR did not address the impact predatory wildlife such as coyotes will have on the small pets of the Parkside Estates residents, nor the effects of human interference with natural wild animal behaviors.The coyotes of the state lands and Boisa Chica Wetlands have for decades been encroached upon by human civilization and as such have adapted to living within close proximity to people. The neighborhoods surrounding the wetlands and state lands are regularly subjected to nighttime invasion by hunting coyotes, especially during the spring when there are young to feed. Many residents have lost cats and small dogs to predation, and this behavior will no doubt continue in the Parkside Estates development. In addition, well-meaning if not misguided people from the surrounding communities have for years engaged in illegal feeding of the coyotes on state lands and the wetlands (dog food, dinner leftovers, sandwiches, bread, raw meat, etc.).This has only served to further acclimate the animals to humans and has had the effect of teaching the coyotes to view people as an easy source of food.Walls and fences are no barrier to determined hunting & scavenging coyotes — they have been known to scale backyard walls in excess of 7' with ease, and are more than able to dig under that which they cannot climb. More homes equals more pets, hence more predatory invasion of neighborhoods. Further loss of desire to hunt natural prey such as rabbits and squirrels will only result in continued predation of household pets, the very real potential for extermination of intrusive coyotes, and the subsequent overpopulation/invasion of rodents on the wetlands, state lands, and in the surrounding housing areas. • THE EIR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST(S) FAILED TO NOTICE A VIABLE POPULATION OF PROTECTED BUTTERFLY, THE SALTMARSH SKIPPER, ON THE DEGRADED WETLANDS OF THE SHEA HOMES PROPERTY,THE ADJACENT STATE LANDS, AND THE BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS. Several botanical and wildlife surveys were completed at various times during 1997, yet the observations of the Saltmarsh Skipper populations were conducted during the month of December when the butterflies and larvae are dormant and hence not visible. During summer and fall these very small butterflies can be readily seen inhabiting the pickleweeds and heliotrope plants throughout the wetlands, state lands and the area of degraded wetland near the Wintersburg channel on the Shea property, some of which is slated for housing.The biologist(s) also failed to note that the poor condition of the pickleweed plants is due to excessive trampling by humans and off-roading bicycles.The present-day conditions are even worse than when the study was conducted five years ago, yet the Saltmarsh Skipper has managed to survive. Continued encroachment by housing and humans makes future survival in these areas questionable due to the ever-increasing destruction and trampling of the habitat. x Photo takenr Photo taken m July 29, 2002 onY;'" 24 August 12, 2002 M? . the degraded state land + t wetlands of Shea r approx. 1/2 mile vim', r 1 i� .,mac, •ia,1 .,' ^"`". Homes property �` 4, d from Shea Homes near the bean field. ;. f _ property. Saltmarsh Skipper pictured larger than actual size. 23 September 2002 Information and photos submitted by D.H. David E. Hamilton 5401 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Phone: (714) 840-8901 Fax: (714) 846-5152 E-mail: dehamilton@earthlink.net September 24, 2002 C City of Huntington Beach SEP 2 4 2002 Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Proposed Certification of EIR 97-2 (Shea Homes' Parkside Development) Dear Commissioners, During the public hearing of the Planning Commission on September 10, 2002 an issue arose concerning the likelihood of ground subsidence in existing local neighborhoods due to the over-excavation and dewatering of the Parkside site. An example of severe ground disturbance/subsidence from similar construction in Huntington Beach was cited by one of the Planning Commissioners (Mark Porter). As a result the Planning Staff was directed by the Chair to compare and contrast this example, together with subsidence likelihood and City liability in preparatory reports for the September 24 Planning Commission meeting. Other examples of similar subsidence damage around recent construction sites in Huntington Beach are also available to the Planning Staff. One such example is damage to residential homes during and after the Shields pump-station upgrade construction. Instead of addressing the concerns of local residents and those of the Planning Commission, the September 24 Staff Report (B-2a, page 5) chose to reiterate the language of the subject EIR and prior Staff documentation. Instead of analyzing where mitigation measures failed to protect Huntington Beach residents, as I understood the Staff was directed, the Staff chose the EIR language that cites only where mitigation measures were, according to the Staff, "successfully implemented" elsewhere and "time- tested". I, for one, consider the Staff response inadequate to address City Planning Commission and resident concerns. Furthermore, if the City adopts an approach to subsidence liability according to that stated in the 9/24 Staff Report (B-2a, page 6, last paragraph) which would compel the homeowner to prove casualty after the fact, I and my neighbors would be left with little recourse but to pre-empt the likelihood of subsidence damage by enjoining construction activity before it starts. This seems the only available alternative to protect our homes and property. We expect the courts will be sympathetic due to recent, highly publicized examples of damage from ill-advised projects in Yorba Linda, Laguna Niguel, and Trabuco Canyon, not to mention the well-chosen example cited by a HB Planning Commissioner in a public forum. These, too, had construction mitigation measures based on the recommendations of"professional experts". Should the language of the EIR and Staff Reports be approved, we will have little recourse but to seek injunctive remedy until the City or the developer, or both, indemnifies homeowners against any and all damages that could possibly result from construction of the development. Urban planning that forsakes existing neighborhoods for the dubious benefits of future developments is not real planning but evidence of the laissez-faire attitudes of entrenched planning departments that have self-serving agendas. Does the Huntington Beach Planning Department staff work for Huntington Beach citizens at the direction of the Planning Commission or for developers who resort to condescension and cheap insults when referring to HB citizens? Please do not certify this EIR without requiring adequate neighborhood protections against any damages from the developer. Regards, David E. Hamilton Huntington Beach Homeowner n,VCEJN-ErJ SEP 2 4 2002 Planning Commissioner Jan Shomaker Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Sing Joe Kong 5402 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 September 19, 2002 Reference: Shea Home Parkside Development Dear Madame Commissioner: On or about September 5 I talked to the principal planner, Ms. Mary Beth Broeren of the referenced project. Earlier I submitted my comments on the EIR related to this project and was curious about when I would expect some responses from the City addressing my concerns. I was told that some,but not all, of the concerns would be indirectly addressed in the staff report. I was further instructed to go to the planning Department in the City Hall after 4 p.m. on Friday, September 6, 2002 to obtain copies of the staff report. Consequently, at the appointed hour,I went up to the planning department on the third floor and asked the receptionist at the Information Desk how to obtain copies of the staff report. She directed me to stay in line before the planner's counter and wait for my turn. It just happened that applicants before me had reams of drawings and charts to discuss with the planners. I waited about twenty-five minutes and saw a gentleman walking by me who appeared to be one of the staff members of the department. I asked him whether I needed to stay in line to get copies of the staff report. He said that he would get them for me. He walked away to fetch the report. A couple minutes later,he came back with volumes I and II of the report. At the same time, he informed me that the third volume was still under preparation. He told me to come back the following Monday to obtain the third volume. Unfortunately, I could not go back on the following Monday because I was rushed to the hospital in an emergency on Sunday evening. I was subsequently hospitalized for five days. I was wondering whether I could still obtain a copy of the third volume, which I 1 may use in a public hearing to be chaired by you on the Shea Home Parkside project on September 24, 2002. Sincerely, r- Sing Joe Kong cc: Mary,Beth Broeren Monica Hamilton 2 3435 Wilshire Boulevard � SIERRA (213) 387-6528 phone Suite 320 (213)387-5383 fax Los Angeles,CA 90010-1904 www.sierraclub.org CLUB- 0 FOUNDED 1892 To: Huntington Beach Planning Commission From: The Sierra Club Subject: Environmental Documentation for Shea's Parkside Estates (SCH# 1997091051) The environmental documentation for the proposed Parkside Estates project in Huntington Beach, CA fails to address the presence and viability of wetlands on the project site. It has been well know for decades that this area contains wetlands. As shown on the enclosed photographs, wetlands still exist on the site on a seasonal basis and have known to exist there historically. The site must be resurveyed during two successive rainy seasons to map these wetlands. All wetlands must be preserved and adequately buffered from surrounding development. Off-site remediation is not recommended, due to the poor success rates achieved with attempts to replace wetlands elsewhere. If off-site mitigation is proposed, all wetlands must be replaced at a ratio of at least three to one. On behalf of the 200,000 Sierra Club members in California and the 12,000 members in Orange County, absent a more complete investigation of this issue, environmental documentation for the project cannot be considered adequate. In addition, the Sierra Club has concerns about the project's impact on coastal resources and water quality. Considering the widely publicized beach closures in Huntington Beach and the poor water quality surrounding urban runoff issues, special scrutiny should be given to this project considering how the proposed Water Quality Plan is based on faulty assumptions and analysis. Regards, Rudy Vietmeier, Sierra Club PO Box 454 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714 926-7285 /562-866-8978 ri * , ' � k P + nc 1 M i n 1 Cq1zLI Staff's Recommendation : Certify the Parkside EIR 1 . Analyzes the potential environmental impacts 2. Identifies project alternatives 3. Identifies mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts My name is Julie Bixby; I live at 17451 Hillgate Lane. City Planners are recommending certifying the Parkside EIR based upon these 3 criteria. With regards to Public Services—specifically Fire Response& Safety--we feel the Final EIR fails on all 3 points. 1 Maybe, maybe not: the Response Time Shuffle • "the Fire Department is confident that Station 6 is capable of meeting the 5 minute emergency response time required." (Staff Report 9/10/02) • "There may be some locations in the area of the Parkside Project that remain outside of this standard [for Station #6]." (Staff Report 9/24/02) Here's an attempt at analysis. Please note that upon further review, the "confidence"the Fire Department expressed earlier regarding Edwards Station response has now turned to caution. This caution is NOT contained in the EIR, by the way just the Staff Report. 3 "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 incorporating the existing 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! 5 Types of Calls to H .B. F.D. (by percentage) 70 ..v. �.r 60 50 40 medical aid 30 fires 20 10 0 1992 1996 2001 Why medical mitigation? THIS is why: the overwhelming majority of emergency calls to the Fire Department are for MEDICAL AID assistance, NOT actual fires! We fail to see how smoke alarms, sprinklers, and a traffic signal will help the person having a heart attack, whether they live in the western half of Parkside or live south of the Graham/Slater intersection. -------------------------------------------------------------- Data Sources: 1992 BB Draft General Plan: 70%medical aid, 6% fires 1996 HB General Plan: 68%medical aid, 6% fires 2001 H.B.F.D. Annual Report: 65%medical aid, 3% fires 7 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration e�.raH+�x w�u�w+�+apc;a�wr trrrtwMaao a+sp# 4nn vr «rwwa t14n.� Ma .,c pill i T �ti*Gtwah 3 k L S hY 4 S hftp://www.bixby.org/parkside/ My name is Mark Bixby and I live at 17451 Hillgate. These slides and more are available from www.bixby.org. 1 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 hftp://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 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. 2 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 — offers superior public safety by not relying on Slater Pump Station as a single point of failure But don't forget that County pump permit! hftp://www.bixby.org/parkside/ The 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. 3 Beware the Caltrans Sand Filter Debacle! • September 17th Rivertech memo cites negative sand filter efficiency for phosphorus, nitrate, and lead • High maintenance is required for optimum efficiency • Will this be a repeat of the Caltrans San Joaquin Hills toll road drain fiasco? hftp://www.bixby.org/parkside/ The latest Rivertech memo cites the high maintenance needs and certain NEGATIVE efficiency ratings of sand filters that could actually INCREASE the concentrations of certain pollutants if the entire treatment train is not carefully designed. Please take care to avoid another Caltrans San Joaquin Hills toll road drain fiasco in which poor design and poor maintenance worsened coastal water quality. 4 What's that awful smell??? 9.011np D—I.prd A_-21.8AiT Abandoned Existing 60"RCP 493 486.1 Set rAl:='64 AC A3�35Ac "sae ,w East Carden Grove Wintersburg '.A9 1.9'Ac Channel 609 Slater Channel Slater Pump Station' EIR Volume IIA, Section 5, page 4-1 http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 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. Yet these odors are not mentioned amongst the various.impacts in the main section of the EIR, nor are any mitigations offered. 5 September 20th Coastal Commission letter "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" hftp://www.bixby.org/parkside/ The September 20t' 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! 6 We Demand a Traffic Study Recount! • Some data collected on August 29th, BEFORE Marine View had resumed • All other data collected during Labor Day week when many people are away on summer vacations (and not driving on HB roads!) • OVSD enrollment still ramping up http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ Shifting gears to the September 9th traffic study, we demand a recount because that study failed to capture typical AM peak conditions. Some data was collected BEFORE Marine View had resumed. All other 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 this period. 7 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 hftp://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 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 27tn I promise to shut up about undercounting if a new traffic study is conducted on any Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday after September 27tn 8 1997+Project HCM p.28 Southbound Graham at Glenstone Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 LZ L1 L2 L1 L2 slow 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 B pproach: Delay 9.09 9.98 11.85 12.47 LOS A A B B ntersectiou Delay 11.62 Intersection LOS B http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ So why is an accurate count so important? The old traffic data shows this intersection doing OK at Level of Service B. 9 2002+Project HCM p.36 Southbound Graham at Glenstone Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service a.' Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 glow Rate 77 289 362 501 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 7elay 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? hftp://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 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. 10 Restriping still a bogus mitigation! 2002+Project+I m prov HCM p.40 yorksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 slow Rate 77 274 3 359 228 273 Service Time 4.8 3.9 4.3 4.0 4.1 3.8 :ilization, x 0.15 0.44 0.01 0.62 0.41 0.46 sp. 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 13.461 14.00 PS B B A C B B pproach: Delay 10.93 13.35 18.70 13.75 LOS B B C B . btersection Delay 14.96 intersection LOS B hftp://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 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. 11 A Rebuttal to Dick Harlow Graham at Neargate Graham at "A" Street Non-arterial Arterial Not a through street Is a through street Light peak traffic Heavy peak traffic hftp://www.bixby.org/parkside/ The applicant's lobbyist used Graham & Neargate as an example to show that the single Parkside exit at "A" Street won't have any undue impacts. As you can see, these two intersections differ in almost every respect, so it looks like Dick was really comparing apples to orangutans. 12 Southbound Graham at "A" Street Monday, September 9th 2002 @ 7:31 AM ' r' . '``�`• _tag..;::<-, •"`,;k.... 71 s- y.J. A http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ But as we all know, one video clip is worth more than a thousand words from a lobbyist. 4' We're standing at Kenilworth looking Isouth on Graham towards "A" Street, observing the heavy morning peak traffic. Note how cars wanting to turn left onto Glenstone are-queuing in the defacto left-turn median and how though-traffic is passing on the right. Restriping and a new Parkside signal are NOT going to fix this! The only solution that will mitigate the queuing here is to add a signal at Graham & Glenstone. 13 In Conclusion .. . • Serious unmitigated impacts remain • Reasonable development alternatives have not been explored • Still too many unanswered questions Please vote to DENY certification of this EIR! hftp://www.bixby.org/parkside/ In conclusion, we ask that you vote to deny certification of this EIR because many serious deficiencies still remain. THANK YOU! 14 MONICA IZUZICY NAMILTON 5401 Ke#ta w0rtJv Drove/ }f ant"�VcYv3ec , CA 92649 714-840.8901 September 19, 2002 Jan Shomaker Chair,Planning Commission SEEP City of Huntington Beach Z� � 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Commissioner Shomaker, I request that the Public Hearing, regarding the certification of the Shea Parkside Estates E.I.R.,be reopened during the September 24`'Planning Commission meeting,to which Commission consideration of the project was continued from the September I&meeting. The completed City of BB Planning Department Staff Report was not available for public review 72 hours before the meeting, as is required. This prevented proper review, analysis, and preparation of comments by the interested public regarding this very complex issue, which is of great concern to the surrounding neighbors. The completed report was not available publicly until Monday, September 9. The public was told that the report would be made available at the Planning Department after 4:00 p.m. Friday September 6, 2002,and that a copy would also be delivered to the Central Library to be made available to the public over the weekend. It was not available to the public at either of these locations at the times specified. When trying to follow-up on availability of the report, the following pieces of information were disclosed: • When the issue of the report not being available was raised with Scott Hess on Monday, after the deadline had passed, he replied that it had been ready and if we had been there after 4:00 o'clock on Friday, we could have picked it up. However, someone was there after 4:00 on Friday, and the report was not ready. • When Mr. Joe Kong arrived at the Planning Department at 4:00 p.m. on 9/6, he was made to wait for 25 minutes in line before a staff person gave him a portion of the report. He was told that the rest was not finished, and that he would have to come back on Monday to pick it up. (See attachment.) • Someone else later told me that the report had not been finished until after closing time on Friday after which, of course, the Planning Department was closed for the weekend. So the report was not available from the Planning Department by the 72-hour deadline. • Additionally,the library didn't have a copy available until one was hand-delivered by Mary Beth Broeren on Monday, September 9. • We were later told that someone had delivered a copy, but that it wasn't delivered until after the library closed, so the person just stuck the report into the Book Return slot. The Library never found this copy, hence the hand delivery by Ms. Broeren on Monday. (Why didn't the person just deliver it on Saturday a.m.?) Because this very important document was not available as prescribed by law,please reopen the Public Hearing to include additional comment about the Shea Parkside project. Respectfully,._ nlll-,6�C�"- Monica Ruzich Hamilton Attachment: September 19, 2002 Letter by Joe Kong .�Jl i�- ( lf-�-�. ors�.���/►s 7i STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 'outh Coast Area Office J0 Oceangate,Suite 1000 Long Beach,CA 90802-4302 (562)590-5071 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 101h and 171h, 2002) concur with our analyses: CDS Units are not sufficient to protect water quality from this development.. CDS Units do not achieve 90% reductions of all urban runoff pollutants. and therefore, there will not be 45% area-wide reductions in pollutant load as was stated in the EIR. When multiple comment letters questioned the impact of this development on Huntington Harbor, the Response to Comments cited the 45% figure and then stated that there would be no impact on the Harbor's water quality. Given its inaccuracies, the 45% reduction figure cannot be used to determine that there will be no significant impact on Huntington Harbor; therefore, we believe the impacts to Huntington Harbor, a 303(d)-listed water body, have not been fully considered. At the same time, we concede that discerning the difference between significant or insignificant impacts to an .already-impaired water body is not an easy task. Ultimately, though, the solution must rest in the development of WQMP that incorporates a thorough and protective array of structural BMPs, site design, and source control measures. We would be happy to continue working with the consultants to develop an appropriate WQMP. In addition, Rivertech concurs with Coastal Commission staff's statement that runoff from this development can reach the Bolsa Chica reserve, although the EIR states otherwise. Therefore, similar to our statements about Huntington Harbor, we do not believe water quality impacts to the Bolsa Chica Reserve have been fully considered. Coastal Commission staff will not suggest a particular action be taken.by the City's Planning Commission at its September 24t'' hearing. We simply request that the Huntington. Beach Planning Commission and City Council consider these problem areas in the EIR when they determine what course of action to take. We look forward to continuing this dialogue with the City and the consultants to develop a sound and protective Water Quality Management Plan for the Parkside Estates. Such a plan will need to be prepared by the time this project is submitted to the Commission for review. It is our understanding that the development contemplated under this EIR will be submitted to the Commission as an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program. Sincerely, Stephen Rynas, AICP Orange County Area Supervisor HALetters\City of Huntington Beach\BroerenOldoc Planning Commissioner Jan Shomaker Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Sing Joe Kong 5402 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 September 19,2002 Reference: Shea Horne Parkside Development Dear Madame Commissioner: On or about September 5 I talked to the principal planner,Ms.Mary Beth Broeren of the referenced project. Earlier I submitted my comments on the EIR related to this project and was curious about when I would expect some responses from the City addressing my concerns. I was told that some,but not all,of the concerns would be indirectly addressed in the staff report.I was further instructed to go to the planning Department in the City Hall after 4 p.m.on Friday, September 6,2002 to obtain copies of the staff report. Consequently, at the appointed lour,I went up to the planning department on the third floor and asked the receptionist at the Information Desk how to obtain copies of the staff report. She directed me to stay in line before the planner's counter and wait for my turn. It just happened that applicants before me had reams of drawings and charts to discuss with the planners. I waited about twenty-five minutes and saw a gentleman walking by me who appeared to be one of the staff members of the department. I asked him whether I needed to stay in line to get copies of the staff report.He said that he would get them for me. He walked away to fetch the report. A couple minutes later,he came back with volumes I and H of the report. At the sum time, he informed are that the third volume was still under preparation.He told me to come back the following Monday to obtain the third volume. Unfortunately,I could not go back on the following Monday because I was rushed to the hospital in an emergency on Sunday evening. I was subsequently hospitalized for five days. I was wondering whether I could still obtain a copy of the third volume,which I 1 may use in a public hearing to be chaired by you on the Shea Home Parkside project on September 24, 2002. Sincerely, f Sing Joe Kong cc: Mary Beth Broeren Monica Hamilton 2 Comments on Parkside Project Final EIR Planning Commission Public Hearing September 24, 2002 Submitted by Mr. &Mrs. Sing Joe Kong 5402 Kenilworth Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 stp 2,52002 To Ms. Mary Beth Broeren City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning September 24, 2002 Dear Ms. Broeren: Enclosed please find a copy of verbal comments that I didn't get a chance to finish in tonight's meeting. Please enter it as a public record as a part of the attachments to the 97- 2 Final EIR Thank you very much. Sincerely, Sing Joe ong Address to the Planning Commission Sing Joe Kong September 24,2002 Good evening. My name is Joe Kong. My wife and I have been living on Kenilworth since 1966. We have followed with keen interest the proposed Shea Homes Project behind us. Since 1996, we have been addressing our concerns over the impact of such a development on our property. Our latest comments are on public record as on your Staff Report B-3a as Attachment 4.1 through 4.7. To reiterate, Concern No.1 relates to the traffic condition at the intersection of Kenilworth and Graham during peak traffic hours. Both the relevant EIR and the Staff Report fail to demonstrate and justify that a new traffic light at "A" Street and Graham will provide gaps for the motorists on Kenilworth to safely exit north onto Graham. The second concern is no longer an issue with us. Concern No. 3 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". I am a retired aerospace structural engineer and as such I dealt with facts and figures. The EIR fails to provide any reliable data or test results to substantiate its conclusions.Hence,I hereby offer my backyard as an experimental platform for the contractor 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 me, 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 us from such catastrophe. Our last concern is about the perimeter wall in our back. The EIR and Staff Reports contain conflicting statements regarding the future of the wall on the northerly boundary 1 II of the proposed project. If the City decides on a new wall, our existing 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 concerns may seem insignificant to some of you,but to us, each single concern is a big deal nonetheless! In conclusion,I truly appreciate the difficult task ahead of you. You have a dual responsibility to fulfill. On the one hand,your considered final decision is for the betterment of the city in all respects. On the other hand, you have also 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 from 5 to 14 feet over acres of virgin land is a true and clear indication that something is radically wrong. We therefore respectfully urge you not to certify the EIR. Thank you and good night. 2 t` tt F� 4 1 { l t a V � b � Juno e-mail for deanoalb@juno.com printed on Saturday, September 21, 2002 From: quake-large-owner0eginfo wr usgs gov To: quake-large a arNic.gps.caltech.edu Date: Sat, 21 Sep 200214:28:48-0700(PDT) Subject: (MI 4.1) CALTECH/USGS EARTHQUAKE MESSAGE _= PRELIMINARY EVENT REPORT =_ Southern California Seismic Network (TriNet) operated by Caltech and USGS Version 1: This report supersedes any earlier reports about this event. This Is a computer generated solution and has not yet been reviewed by a human. Magnitude : 4.1 MI Time 21 Sep 2002 02:26:16 PM PDT 21 Sep 2002 21:26:16 UTC Coordinates : 33 deg. 13.76 min. N, 116 deg. 6.69 min. W Depth 7.5 miles ( 12.1 km) Quality Excellent Event ID 9826789 Location 6 mi. N of Ocotillo Wells, CA 44 mi. NW of El Centro, CA 14 mi. N of OCOTILLO (quarry) More information is available on the Worldwide Web at: http://www.trinet.orglscsn/scsn.htmi You are receiving this message through the quake-large mailing list. To subscribe, go to hftp://pasadena.wr.u§gs.gov/latest/malling-lists.htmi To unsubscribe, send mail to quake-large-unsubscribe@eginfo.wr.usgs.gov 1 of 1 Report an earthquake: California home Page 1 of 2 Did You Feel It"? California Alaska Hawaii W. Pacific Northeast Central Puerto Outsk Mountain NW US Rico US View Unlisted Scientific Regior map Archives Quake background Disclaimer FAQ Comments home Recent significant events in the California region Did you feel it? Select an earthquake from the list to view a map or submit your own report. If y can't find the quake you felt please wait several minutes for it to appear online. If you still can't 1 it, fill out an unknown earthquake form. To see more maps, check out our Top Ten Lists, which rank our most felt earthquakes ever. Al look for important past earthquakes in the Archives. SELECT EARTHQUAKE LOCATION DATE TIME MAGNITUDE 6 miles NNE of Ocotillo SEP 21 14:26:16 Wells, California 2002 PDT 4.1 (ID 9826789) 2 miles NW of The Geysers, SEP 19 Califomia 2002 15:47:25 PDT 2.9 (ID 40136818) Near The Geysers, Califomia SEP 19 15:45:08 PDT 3.5 (ID 40136817) 2002 2 miles NNE of The Geysers SEP 19 California 13:16:24 PDT 2.5 (ID 40138814) 2002 17 miles NW of Ludlow. California SEP 18 (ID 13820088) 2002 23:21:04 PDT 3.5 7 miles WSW of Anza.'Califomia SEP 17 08:00:05 PDT 3.7 (ID 13813696) - 2002 HISTORIC EVENTS DATE TIME MAGNITUDE Hector Mine OCT 16 02:46:45 PDT 7.1 1999 Northridge JAN 17 04:30:55 PST 6.7 1994 Loma Prieta OCT 17 17:04:15 PST 6.9 http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/shake%a/ 9/21/02 Southern California Seismographic Network (SCSN) Page 1 of 2 T r NetAm 0outhern California :is is e The Southern California Seismic Network (SCSN) is a cooperative project of the U.S. Geological Survey Pasadena office and the Caltech Seismological Laboratory. It is also part of the Tr1Net cooperative project between the USGS, Caltech, and the California Geological Survey. The SCSN Is one of the largest and most automated seismic networks In the world. It consists of more than 350 analog and digital seismographs operated by multiple sources which relay both continuous and triggered seismic data back to a central computer facility in the Seismology Laboratory on the Caltech campus. After the seismic data is processed, it is archived and can be accessed from the Southern California Earthquake Center Data Center. General information & data: What is SCSN? Station Map Station Information Analog vs. Digital Stations Seismic Waveform Data Earthquake Catalogs A Phase Data Faults, Earthquakes, etc. in Southern California Earthquake information: Current Earthquake Map A List ---4 �-° Shake Maps &. Focal Mechanisms Earthquake Commentary & Special Reports Current Seisrnegra s & Phase Picks Did you feel it? See also: Triplet U.S. Geological Sur fey Pasadena Field Office http://www.trinet.org/sesn/Sesn.htmi 9/21/02 Southern California Seismographic Network (SCSN) Page 2 of 2 Caltech Seismological Laboratory �.. . SCEC_DC (Southern California Earthquake d� a Center Data Center) National Strong Motion Program, (NISMP) Northern California Seismic Network (NCSN) Advanced National Seismic System Network (ANSS) VIP ket � r IM Aft �S►a�e �a .t�i�et.+�rglac�ml.�csPs.O�t xl Last sr;Wat+ed 05103100 Ma►letaBeed by,Lisa WaId. Send comments anal smggaeefides for this page to webm.qf@trinet.org http://www.trinet.org/scsn/Sesn.htmi 9/21/02 Recent Earthquakes in California and Nevada - index Map Page 2 of 2 Flog do earthquakes get on these neaps? 11 FAQs 11 Disclaimer Earthquakes elsewhere in the U.S. and around the world Top pgge 11 Other sites for this pq info 11 Other earthquake sites 18 Credits Data Sources: Northern California -USGS U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park Northern California-UCB = University of California, Berkeley Southern California -USGS = U.S.Geological SunM,LPasadena Southern California-Caltech =California Institute of Technology Southern California -UCSD = University of California, San Diego Nevada -UNR= University of Nevada, Reno US and World -USGSINEIC = National Earthquake Information Center offshore =West Coast A Alaska Tsunami Warning Center ...all members of the Council of the National Seismic System (CNSS) Please email suggestions and comwents to webinaste�pasadena,wrasgs q®err http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/recentegs/ 9/21/02 Recent Earthquakes in California and Nevada - Index Map Page 1 of 2 Recent Earthquakes 'in Cal-Ifom-la and Nevada n � w � AY�AGNIT9RM.f,p y �gy�,t, a P... ", a k a pqt z 13, Q4° v dT r y a LAST HOUR Q4 p ° LAST DAB' 13 sLAST WEEK 10"PM Sat Sup 21 17:ADO:134 1113 i 0' ` 279 earthquakes on this map ®id you feel it? - Click Here Shakernaps - Southern CA 1' Northern CA Click on an earthquake on the above map for a zoomed-in view. Special maps: Long Vail ey 11 Los Angeles 11 San Francisco Earthquake lists: big earthquakes 11 all earthquakes Magnitude = ? for new earthquakes until a magnitude is determined (takes 4.5 minutes). Maps are updated within 1-5 minutes of an earthquake or once an hour. (Smaller earthquakes in southern California are added after human processing, which may take several hours.) Map need updating?Try reloading the page to your browser. Brown lines are known hazardous faults and fault zones. Other Information-. http://pasadena.wr.usgs.govlrecentegs/ 9/21/02 Report an earthquake: California home Page 2 of 2 1989 New Earthquake... Archives... Go to... Y x AMA TriNet seismic" network UC Berkeky Selsmalogical Lacbaram4 This is a U.S. Geological Survey project to collect information about ground shaking following significant earthquakes. You can help us by filling out a questionnaire for each earthquake.yoL feel, A Community Internet Intensity Map will be made and updated every few minutes followir a major earthquake.At first only a few ZIP codes will have intensities assigned, but over time others will`be assigned as data comes in. Check back often and watch the maps change! Didn't feel an earthquake but want to see how it works? Contribute to our test dataset. U.S. Geological Survey, a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Interior FIRS, 3� ., V f Community Internet Intensity Maps �..., , <http✓/pasadena.wr.usgs.govlshake> Maintained by: CIIM working group Last modified 9.21.2002 USGS Privacy Statement ( Disclaimer I I FOIA I I Accessibility, a http://pasadena.wr.usgs-gov/shake/Ca1 9/21/02 a XT TIT-171"! e Im r. KA, i, T! 1Q. _G N I U 5-m.1:,. 5 Alt lz 1:Loll�j t k: F-I v 14U-I;i T-fftll:��Al SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKES Page 2 of 3 Instrumental measurements of magnitude were possible (Le. before 1933). Note: To use this Imagemap your browser must be compatible with client-side imagemaps. Comments are welcome. RELATED INFORMATION . Chronological index Search for a particular earthquake by date. . Faults of Southern Califarnia Information about faults can be obtained by clicking on fault traces on one of five maps, or by searching an alphabetical index. . Animation of Earthquakes, M 4.5 and greater, 1932 through 1997 Watch a year-by-year animation of significant events in southern California. . Annual Seismicity Animations and still images of all annual seismicity in southern California for the years 1985 through 1996. . Monthly Seismicity_Animations Animations of the southern California seismicity rate - all magnitudes - one month each at a time, at the rate of one frame per day. . A Day in the Life of Southern Callfomla Seismicity See the seismicity rate of southern California, animated - one quake at a time - for different 24-hour periods. . List of California Earthquakes - 1769 to the present httpJ/www.sceede.scee.org/clickmap.htmi 9/21/02 Lowered Aquiler w ill Raise Water Imports and Cost Utilities:Agency says too and into 23 local water systems. The aquifer is replenished by rain, much has been pumped, river water and runoff. and buying elsewhere G Current.policy dictates a target overdraft" of 200,000 acre-feet, may increase users'rates. which allows rainwater from two wet years to be absorbed. By SEEMA MERTA But the overdraft has grown to TIMES STAFF WRITER more than double that target. "This summer, it became obvi- Too much water has been drawn ous,"Wildermuth said."We're at a from Orange County's vast under- turning point where we need to re- ground aquifer,.which will mean view the production out of the ba- more imported water at greater sin versus our ability to put water cost for more than 2 million people, back into our basin.We need to in- officials said Monday. vest in new ways to get water into "I think we're looking at higher the ground." water rates next year," said Ron Jerry A. King, president of the Wildermuth, spokesman for the Orange County Water District, Orange County Water District, said in a written statement, "We which manages the massive under- must back off providing 75%of the ground basin that serves the north- [local]supply until we can improve ern and central parts of the county. our ability to acquire new water "We're at a turning point." and build facilities 'to put water Officials realized this year that into the ground." population growth.coupled with Such`i move would be a new, significantly below-average rainfall supply-based strategy for the dis- meant too much water was being trict.The district has operated on a pulled from the basin. demand-based` plan, consistently To offset that,23 cities and local providing 75%of the local need. water agencies will have to reduce The district will also consider their reliance on local ground wa- ways to encourage conspration ter and increase consumption of and increase the amount./of water imported water, which costs more replenishing the basin.!Those than three times as much. Local would be in addition to the several water rates would also rise to pay programs underway,such as devel- for developing new ways to replen- opment of a$600-million.system to ish the ground water.No shortages turn sewage into water. are expected,however. The water district's staff will be- Currently, 75% of the drinking gin proposing solutions to the water in northern and central Board of Directors in coming Orange County is drawn from the months,but no major decisions are ground water,whichcosts$127 per expected until spring. The winter acre-foot (an acre-foot is roughly rainfall could affect how deeply cit- enough to serve two households ies'local supplies are cut. for a year). The remainder is im- The county agency has repeat- ported at $450 per acre-foot from edly struggled throughout its 69- Northern California and the Colo- year history in balancing with- rado River. drawals from the basin with replen- The water basin, which .is as ishment. It's an inexact science deep as two Eiffel Towers and 365 because drought, population square miles on its surface, holds growth and other factors can skew 10 million to 40 million acre-feet. the equation. In the late 1950s, Up to 1.5 million are usable at any drought pushed the overdraft to its one time. lowest level ever-700,000 acre- Wells pull water to the surface feet or 20 feet below sea level. ATTACHMENT I I