Coastal Development Permit Application 5-02-375 (Hearthside Homes)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate, Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302
(562) 590-5071

December 5, 2002

Ed Mountford, Senior Vice President
Hearthside Homes, Inc.
6 Executive Circle, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92614-6732

RE: Coastal Development Permit Application 5-02-375 (Hearthside Homes)

Dear Mr. Mountford:

On November 6, 2002, we received Coastal Development Permit application #5-02-375 for the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15460 and the construction of 379 residential units on 105.3 acres including associated infrastructure such as roads, utilities, parks, trails, and open space. Attachment 7 of the application submission package provides the details of the overall development being submitted for Commission consideration. Commission staff has reviewed your coastal development permit application request and determined it to be incomplete for the reasons stated below.

Section 13053.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations establishes the parameters of what an applicant must submit when a coastal development permit application is submitted. Section 13053.5, in relevant part, states:

(a) An adequate description including maps, plans, photographs, etc., of the proposed development, project site and vicinity sufficient to determine whether the project complies with all relevant policies of the Coastal Act. including sufficient information concerning land and water areas in the vicinity of the site of the proposed project, (whether or not owned or controlled by the applicant) so that the Commission will be adequately informed as to present uses and plans, both public and private, insofar as they can reasonably be ascertained for the vicinity surrounding the project site. The description of the development shall also include any feasible alternatives or any feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the development may have on the environment. For purposes of this section the term "significant adverse impact on the environment" shall be defined as in the California Environmental Quality Act and the Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto, (emphasis added)

[...]

(e) Any additional information deemed to be required by the commission or the commission's executive director for specific categories of development or for development proposed for specific geographic areas.

Below, by bullet point, are the specific items that cause the CDP application to be found incomplete. The order of the bullet points below follows the organization of the application package and should not be interpreted as indicative of the relative importance of the various bullet points. Please submit the requested information and documentation to address the identified deficiencies. Please note that supplementary information submitted in response to our questions will also be analyzed for adequacy, which may in and of itself result in further letters regarding the incomplete status of the application and associated requests to address new informational deficiencies.

Attachment 3. Copies of Required Local Government Approvals

Exhibit D of Attachment 3 to your application contains the Orange County Planning Commission's "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the Brightwater Development Project. In certifying the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), the Planning Commission found that residential development would permanently alter the undeveloped appearance of the Bolsa Chica Mesa from public viewsheds. The SEIR notes that "no feasible mitigation measures have been identified" (Page 4.10-22). The rationale provided for this statement is that the "only way to address the impact is not to develop the project site." (Page 4.10-21) In our letter of January 17, 2002 on the draft SEIR, we suggested that the visual impact of the proposed development could be minimized, to a degree, by painting the structures an earthen tone which blends with the existing terrain and vegetation. The use of appropriate building materials, color palettes, and landscaping to integrate the proposed new development with adjoining terrain and vegetation appears to be a feasible mitigation measure to minimize the significant adverse visual impact of the proposed development.

Section 30251 of the Coastal Act requires that development in highly scenic areas minimize landform alteration, be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area, and be subordinate to the character of its setting. In order for the Commission to evaluate your proposal, please assess and submit a range of feasible mitigation measures such as using earthen tones, vegetative screening and alternative residential configurations that would minimize the significant adverse visual impact of the proposed residential development when viewed from public areas, such as Pacific Coast Highway and the Bolsa Chica Reserve.
Attachment 3. Copies of Required Local Government Approvals

Attachment 1B to Attachment 3 of your application contains a copy of the Orange County Planning Commission's approval (Resolution No. 02-03) of the proposed residential development. Attached to the resolution are the "Conditions of Approval". The County's "Conditions of Approval" require the preparation of additional reports and/or plans and specify standards for their completion. From the information submitted, it appears that Hearthside Homes has not yet prepared these documents. While deferral of some of the identified work (as part of the process to release building permits) is common to many local government actions, the Commission has found that prior completion of many of these documents and tasks is necessary in order for the Commission to conduct a proper review of a development proposal. Therefore, please prepare and submit the following documents, information, and evidence to complete the CDP application.

Condition #13 requires the submittal of a soils and engineering and geologic study. This condition also requires evidence of the project's compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Act and must denote precise boundaries for the Alquist-Priolo Studies Zone, the locations of all known active faults, and the areas surrounding them which, under the Alquist-Priolo Act, may not contain structures for human habitation.
Condition #19 requires the submission of a Grading Mitigation Plan which is to identify the location of all on-site abandoned oil wells and the remediation measures if contaminated soil is encountered.
Condition #20 requires that residential development be setback a certain distance from abandoned oil wells. Please document how the proposed development conforms with this standard.
Condition #25 requires the preparation of drainage studies. Attachment 11.3 of this CDP application contains a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by The Keith Companies. Are the necessary drainage studies in the submitted WQMP? If not, please prepare and submit them. Also please demonstrate how the documents conform with the stated standards.
Condition #26 requires the preparation of an erosion control plan. Attachment 11.3 of this CDP application contains a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by The Keith Companies. Are the necessary erosion control plans in the submitted WQMP? If not, please prepare and submit them. Also please demonstrate how the documents conform with the stated standards.
Condition #27 requires that the applicant obtain the consent of affected property owners permitting off-site grading, cross lot drainage, drainage diversions and/or unnatural concentrations. Please review Section 30601.5 of the Coastal Act and provide evidence of Hearthside Homes' legal ability to undertake work on property not owned by Hearthside Homes.
Condition #28 requires that the applicant obtain a "State General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit" from the State Water Resources Control Board. This condition also requires the preparation and County approval of a "Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Attachment 11.3 of this CDP application contains a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by The Keith Companies which may fulfill the requirements of Condition #28. Is the necessary SWPPP in the submitted WQMP? If not, please prepare and submit. Also please demonstrate how the document conforms with the stated standards. Has Hearthside Homes obtained the required "State General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit"? If not, please obtain and submit verification of approval.
Condition #29 requires the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan or Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). A WQMP has been submitted. Is the submitted WQMP meant to fulfill the requirements of Condition #29? If not, please prepare and submit the WQMP or SUSMP documents required by this condition. Also please demonstrate how the documents conform with the stated standards.
Condition #30 requires that the Hearthside Homes obtain coverage under the NPDES Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Has this occurred? Is this the same requirement as Condition #28? If Hearthside Homes has not obtained coverage under the NPDES Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, please provide.
Condition #31 requires the submission and approval of a "Runoff Management and Water Quality Plan" (RMWQP). Attachment 11.3 of this CDP application contains a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by The Keith Companies. Is the necessary RMWQP in the submitted WQMP? If not, please prepare and submit. Also please demonstrate how the document conforms with the stated standards.
Condition #35 requires the establishment of a trust fund in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game to manage raptor predation upon nesting sensitive target species or other sensitive species after the implementation of residential development. Please provide the details on this trust fund including confirmation of its acceptance by the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Condition #36 requires that the Department of Fish and Game (DF&G) review and approve a Southern Tarplant Replacement Program. The Southern Tarplant Replacement Program has been submitted as Attachment 11.5 but evidence of DF&G approval has not been submitted. Please provide evidence of any DF&G approval.
Condition #37 requires a management plan¹ specifying how public visitation of the natural areas will be controlled and managed. If this management plan has not yet been prepared, please prepare and submit.
Condition #38 requires a management plan² specifying how natural areas will be protected from residential landscaping. If this management plan has not yet been prepared, please prepare and submit.
Condition #40 requires the preparation of a "Construction Traffic Control Plan". This report needs to be completed as a filing requirement.
Condition #51³ requires that prior to any grading permit being issued that the applicant prepare a research design for recovered material analysis. The research design is required to contain a discussion of important research topics for recovered material analysis that can be addressed. Additionally, the research design is to be reviewed by at least three qualified archeologists. This research design has not been submitted, please prepare and submit the research design.
Condition #54 requires that, prior to any grading being undertaken, the preparation of a report based, in part, on a field survey to assess cultural resource mitigation measures. This report has not been submitted; please prepare and submit the required report.
Condition #55 requires that Hearthside Homes perform a subsurface test level investigation and surface collection. Hearthside would then be required to prepare a report analyzing the finds and identifying appropriate mitigation. This information needs to be completed as a filing requirement to evaluate compliance of the proposed development with Section 30244 of the Coastal Act.
Condition #58 requires the submission of a paleontological report prior to any grading to assess the impact of development on the resources and to propose necessary mitigation requirements. This report has not been submitted; please prepare and submit the required report.

Attachment 7, Master Site/Area Plan (PA#01-0070) Project Site Plans. Section 2.1

Attachment 7 contains the Master Development Plan; as such, it is the "heart" of Hearthside's project description for its proposed residential development. Section 2.1 presents the Master Grading Plan, according to the last paragraph on Page II.2.1 "... 220,000 cubic yards of fill will be transported as shown on Exhibit II.2-1, to an adjacent residential parcel within the City of Huntington Beach that is owned by Shea Homes." According to recent information provided (Exhibit 11.4 which shows a revised Tentative Tract Map 15460 and an updated cut-fill graphic), the export of 220,000 cubic yards of fill will no longer be pursued by Hearthside Homes. Furthermore, the existence of this residual text also raises the potential that there is other text or graphics which may no longer be relevant to the proposed development. Please review Attachment 7 (as well as all other attachments) to assure that the project description is internally consistent and, if not, modify (as appropriate) and confirm that it fully represents, in its entirety, Hearthside's development proposal to the Commission. Also please confirm that all plans, documents, and reports reflect the current proposal.
Attachment 7. Master Site/Area Plan (PA#01-0070) Project Site Plans, Section 2.6

Section 2.6 (Coastal Access and Public Trails) contains the project's public access plan. Additionally Section III.1 provides additional details related to the improvements to be provided in Planning Areas 3A-1 and 3B. A review of these sections has disclosed informational deficiencies that must be resolved before the CDP application can be filed complete.

For instance, a detailed comprehensive signage plan has not been submitted. A detailed comprehensive signage plan would show all wording, pictures, and the specific location of signs so that an adequate assessment can be made by Commission staff that the signage plan identifies the public amenities and- how to access them. The submitted signage plan only partially fulfills this requirement. For example. Section 6.2 notes that coastal access signage will be established along major public streets near and adjacent to the project. The specifics of these signs have not been provided.

Next, Section 6.2 (of this section) provides a conceptual narrative as to the intent of the plan which is not supported by appropriate graphics. Section 6.2 states "The details of such signage (i.e. coastal access logo, colors, and precise wording) shall be consistent with published standards of the California Coastal Commission. Precise signage locations, heights, method of mounting, and lighting along public roadways shall be consistent with placement and public safety standards set for by the applicable jurisdictional agency (i.e. County of Orange, City of Huntington Beach, and/or California Department of Transportation)", Exhibits III.1-2 and III.1-3, theoretically, implement the narrative of Section 6.2. These graphics, however, are inadequate as the off-site public access signage is not displayed and the actual wording of the signs is not provided. Additionally, Exhibit III.1-3 lacks proposed text whereas Exhibit II.4-4, which shows the Model Complex Plan shows proposed wording. To address these informational deficiencies, a detailed signage program must be provided which describes the availability of the public amenities and how the public would access them.

Item "h." on Page III.1-9 references an interpretive "signage program"that will be provided and implemented with the opening of the parking lot and trails. Please prepare and submit the signage program.

The seventh bullet point on Page III.1-10 states that the "Area 3A-1, as described in this Site Plan, shall be included within the Local Park Implementation Plan (LPIP) to be prepared for the project". This phrase apparently references a future plan for how Planning Area 3A-1 will be managed. For example, the amount of local park credit generated by this proposed development will be determined by the LPIP as a future event. Additionally, there is a stated need that the proposed park improvements be consistent with Orange County's "Master Plan of Local Parks". The County's Master Plan does not appear to have been submitted as background information to this CDP application. Please submit an explanatory narrative, the LPIP, and a copy of the County's "Master Plan of Local Parks".

Exhibit II.6-1 (Coastal Access and Public Trails Plan) clearly depicts public access opportunities around the exterior perimeter of the residential development. This graphic, however, also shows gated entries. The gated entry details are shown in Exhibit II. 5-4. The gated entries⁴ imply that the public would not have the ability to traverse the residential community. As the project description, overall, fails to explicitly define public and private areas, a graphic should be prepared to clarify what the public has access to and what Hearthside Homes is proposing as "resident only" areas. If Hearthside Homes intends for the public to have permission to traverse the community, please provide a narrative describing the parameters for public access through the site. Please provide a version of Exhibit II.6-1 which clearly identifies public and private areas.

Though Hearthside Homes proposes to provide public access and recreational opportunities, the submitted public access plan does not appear to address the long-term maintenance of these facilities for the benefit of the public. If this is discussed in other locations of the submission, please identify its location. Otherwise, please provide a discussion of how the public amenities will be kept functional and maintained into the future. Please provide a graphic clearly describing the areas to be dedicated to the County and those to be retained by the homeowners association. This discussion and graphic could be added to Section 2.6
.
Attachment 7. Master Site/Area Plan (PA#01-0070) Project Site Plans, Section 3

Section 3.1 of Attachment 7 contains the development plans for the areas identified as Open Space/Passive Recreation/Conservation. The grading and drainage plan is shown as Exhibit III.1-5. Critical information missing from Section III is a pre-project/post-project summary identifying the pre-project situation and comparing/contrasting it to the post-project situation preferably in the form of an overlay and statistical summary. For example, the Commission's pre-project edge for the bluff top has not been depicted nor have the existing vegetative communities been depicted.
Attachment 9, Verification of Other Permits and Permissions

Sections 3 and 10 of the Commission's CDP application form require the verification of all other permits, permissions, or approvals applied for or granted by local governments and public agencies. Section 30250 of the Coastal Act states that new development be located in areas able to accommodate it. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times (October 10, 2002), Hearthside Homes does not yet have a permit from the City of Huntington Beach for a water pipeline from the Southern California Water Company. Please provide verification that Hearthside Homes has approval from the various local governments and appropriate utilities responsible for providing water, gas, sewer, and electric hook-ups for the proposed development. This narrative can be added to Section 4 of Attachment 7.
Attachment 9.1, Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan

Based on a photocopy of the Orange County Fire Authority stamp (OCFA Services request ^68164), the Orange County Fire Authority approved the fuel modification plan on August 30, 2002. However, it is unclear if Sheets 1 through 4 of Attachment 9.1 fully meet the terms of the OCFA approval of August 30, 2002. These sheets are not formally stamped by OCFA indicating that they are final plans. Additionally, through a letter dated April 26, 2002, OCFA raised a series of questions and asked for a re-submission of "correct plans". Through a letter dated August 12, 2002, Forma (the consultant for Hearthside Homes) provided OCFA with a revised Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan. Please, verify in writing or through the submission of the OCFA stamped plans that the Sheets 1 through 4 fully comply with and implement OCFA's approval of August 30, 2002.
Attachment 11.1. Record of Survey 97-100 with Overlay of Brightwater Project

Attachment 11.1 compares the legal lots created by Certificate of Compliance No. CC 92-01 with Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15460. A review of this graphic discloses that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15460 does not entirely encompass Parcel 2 of Certificate of Compliance No. CC 92-01. Consequently, the remaining land of Parcel 2 would constitute a residual lot. We note that you have not included this remainder parcel in your application. Pursuant to the definition of "development" in Section 30106 of the Coastal Act, the creation of this remainder lot constitutes "development" must be included as part of the project description, as its creation constitutes a division of land.

Please describe what Hearthside Homes is planning for this remainder parcel and why it was not included in the submission as part of the proposed development.

Additionally, this graphic shows an 8.2 acre parcel acquired by Signal Landmark from the Metropolitan Water District in May 2002 as being within Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 1 5460. Please confirm if the entire parcel purchased from the Metropolitan Water District is included in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 1 5460 or if there are remainder portions outside of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.15460.

The Ocean View School District property appears, based on the graphic provided, to transect Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of the Certificate of Compliance No. CC 92-01. While the Ocean View School District is shown in white, which implies that it is a separate legal parcel, we request confirmation that the Ocean View School District property is a separate legal lot.
Attachment 11.2. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions For Brightwater Maintenance Corporation and Establishment of Delegate District No. 1

Exhibits "E" (Depiction of Delegate Districts), "F" (Depiction of Fire Lanes), and "I" (Shared Driveways) are missing from Attachment 11.2. Please provide.
Attachment 11.3, Water Quality

Sections 30230, 30231, and 30232 of the Coastal Act require, in part, that development be designed to minimize the adverse effects of the proposed development on water quality, human health, and the biological productivity of coastal waters. The project site drains (either directly or indirectly) into coastal waters. To demonstrate compliance with these sections of the Coastal Act, a water quality plan prepared by The Keith Companies (October 22, 2002) was submitted. Additionally, Section 2.3 of Attachment 7 presents a "Master Drainage Plan" for the proposed development.

Commission staff also notes, that the County of Orange has required (see Page 2 of this letter) the submission of: erosion control plans. State General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), coverage under the NPDES Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, and a Runoff Management and Water Quality Plan.

However, it is unclear to Commission staff if the submitted Master Drainage Plan and the WQMP provide all the required information to demonstrate that all the required studies, plans, and approvals to protect water quality have been prepared or obtained. For example, though the Master Drainage Plan conceptually describes how Stormwater will be managed, a specific and detailed Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and/or Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) were not submitted. Additionally, Page II.3-4 cites the preparation of a "Hydrology/Water Quality Study", which has not been submitted and appears to be a different document than the WQMP of Oct. 2002 prepared by The Keith Companies. We assume that this "Hydrology/Water Quality Study" may provide some of the specific engineering data to confirm that the Master Drainage Plan has been engineered correctly and will function as conceptually described.

To verify that water quality is protected and that Stormwater is appropriately managed, please provide engineering data and hydrologic⁵ documentation demonstrating that the Master Drainage Plan will protect water quality and is appropriately sized to handle 85th percentile storm events.

According to the Master Drainage Plan, a major storm event will bypass the detention basins and discharge directly into a pocket wetland which is on State property. Please document the effect of the sudden and rapid discharge of freshwater from a storm event on the marine habitat and methods for mitigating this impact. Additionally, as this water will be flowing onto State property, please provide evidence of State approval allowing this stormwater discharge onto State property.

Please submit a SWMP and/or SWPPP that will demonstrate how the proposed development will conform with Sections 30230, 30231, and 30232 of the Coastal Act.
Attachment 11.6, Warner Avenue Interim Construction Traffic Control for TTM 15460 Attachment to Brightwater CDP Application

This graphic depicts road work that will be necessary to provide access/egress of vehicles to the project site. Some of this development will require a coastal development permit from the City of Huntington Beach. This raises several concerns related to the filing of this CDP application with the Commission. First, pursuant to Sections 3 and 10 of the Commission's CDP application form, has the City of Huntington Beach and CALTRANS (if applicable) provided, at least, conceptual approval for the proposed street improvements within the City of Huntington Beach. Please provide evidence of all required local approvals for this proposed road work.

Second, this proposed work is an example of associated off-site work that is integral to the project being considered under this CDP application. What other off-site work is being proposed that is integral to this proposed development? Please cite and provide plans for all required offsite improvements and provide evidence of any obligatory local approvals that may be required.
Attachment 11.9, Archeological Status

Section 30244 of the Coastal Act requires that if proposed development would have an adverse impact on archeological resources, reasonable mitigation measures be provided. Reasonable mitigation measures, depending on the nature of the archaeological or cultural resource, can range from avoidance to removal. The proposed development will affect ORA-83, a known significant archaeological site. Attachment 11.9 contains a "Status Report on ORA-83 Archeological Investigations" prepared by Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. This status report does not address the question of how the proposed development should mitigate its impact on ORA-83. According to the report, "this Status Report provides a summary of the archeological field investigations that have been conducted in compliance with the MOA". Please provide a comprehensive current assessment, that allows the Commission to evaluate the proposed development's compliance with requirements of Section 30244 of the Coastal Act, and specifically address how the proposed development will mitigate its impact on ORA-83.

Additionally, a review of the "Status Report on ORA-83 Archeological Investigations" discloses that future reports, such as a "synopsis report" and "analytical report" are to be prepared. This report also notes that "The significance of the collected materials is considered to be high since the majority are associated with special features and specifically materials related to bone concentrations and circular depressions." The future preparation of these reports, raises the concern that the anticipated impact of the proposed development on ORA-83 has, in fact, not been fully evaluated. Please provide a final archeological analysis evaluating the impact of the proposed residential development on ORA-83 including mitigation measures. Mitigation measures can range from avoidance through siting residential development to avoid the impact to the removal of artifacts.

It is our understanding that on November 2, 2001, the State Historic Resources Commission voted to designate eighteen acres of the Bolsa Chica as an historic district. What is the status of this decision and the implication of this designation on the proposed development? Additionally, please provide a graphic identifying the location of this district in relation to the proposed residential development.

The incomplete nature of this submission, in terms of cultural and paleontological resources, is demonstrated by the County's Conditions of Approval which require that Hearthside Homes prepare a variety of cultural resources and paleontological reports that have possible implications on the subsequent need to mitigate the proposed development's impact on cultural and paleontological resources. The County's Conditions of Approval relative to cultural and paleontological resources are identified beginning on Page 4 of this letter. These documents, including proposed mitigation requirements, must be submitted as part of the filing requirements.
Top of Bluff (Bluff Edge) delineation

Development on coastal bluffs and hillsides is inherently risky due to the potential for landslides. To minimize the potential of development being constructed too close to a bluff edge, the Commission typically requires that development be setback from the top edge of a bluff a sufficient distance to assure stability pursuant to Section 30253 of the Coastal Act. Consequently, a top of bluff delineation must be provided. The edge of the top of bluff is defined as the upper termination of a bluff pursuant to the criteria specified in Section 13577(h)(2) of Title 14 of the California Code Of Regulations.

Section 13577(h)(2) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations states, in relevant part: "Bluff line or edge shall be defined as the upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or seacliff. In cases where the top edge of the cliff is rounded away from the face of the cliff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the steep cliff, the bluff line or edge shall be defined as that point nearest the cliff beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the cliff. In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the cliff face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the cliff edge."

A review of the submission did not disclose the presence of a bluff edge delineation. Please provide a top of bluff edge delineation based on the Commission definition for "top of bluff". The bluff edge delineation should be shown on all maps where development setback is of concern. The bluff edge delineation must also be pre-project. We would also suggest a comparison map showing the bluff edge pre-project and post-project to gain an understanding of the effect of the development on the natural bluff edge.
Department of Fish and Game Review

The proposed development will be occurring adjacent to ESHA areas and will involve impacts to Tarplant. Where a project has a potential to adversely affect biological resources, the Commission typically requires that the applicant submit the proposed development and any habitat management plans to the Department of Fish and Game for their review.

The County has also required consultation with the Department of Fish and Game through Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-03. Condition number 35 requires the establishment of a trust fund in an amount to be determined in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game to assist in the ongoing management of raptor predation upon nesting sensitive target species or other sensitive species after implementation of residential development. Please provide details on the trust fund and evidence of Department of Fish and Game (DF&G) approval.

The County has also required consultation with the Department of Fish and Game through Condition number 36, which requires that the DF&G approve the Southern Tarplant Replacement Program. Please provide evidence that DF&G has approved the Southern Tarplant Replacement Program.

The submission of an evaluation by the Department of Fish and Game of the proposed development on biological resources and how the adverse impacts to habitat will be mitigated is a filing requirement. Commission staff notes that an evaluation by the Department of Fish and Game of the proposed development and any habitat management plan has not been submitted. Please have the Department of Fish and Game review the Brightwater project, including all habitat management plans.
Updated Biological Analysis

The proposed development will be occurring next to sensitive coastal resources. Section 30240(0) of the Coastal Act requires that development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and will be compatible with the continuance of those habitat areas. The conversion of approximately 105 acres of human unoccupied open space to 77 acres of residential development and 28 acres of open space will be a significant change in how the habitat will function.

For example, the Eucalyptus grove is used by raptors for perching while the mesa is used by raptors for foraging. The construction of housing on the mesa potentially has at least two impacts on raptor behavior. First, the housing and subsequent human use of the area may discourage raptors from using the Eucalyptus grove in the future. Second, the construction of housing and subsequent human use will diminish the foraging area available to raptors thereby causing the raptors to seek new foraging areas. One potential "new" foraging area would be the Bolsa Chica lowlands which are home to several endangered species such as the least tern and snowy plover.

The County has also recognized the significance of this issue. To address this concern, the Planning Commission through Resolution No. 02-03, Condition #35 required the establishment of a trust fund for the ongoing management of raptor predation upon nesting sensitive target species or other sensitive species after implementation of residential development.

According to the SEIR (Page 4.9-1), LSA prepared a raptor study in 2001 and a search of the California Natural Diversity Database was also performed in 2001. This recent information has apparently not been included with the CDP application. Please provide copies of this information and any other recent biological research which would assist Commission staff in evaluating the impact of the proposed development on habitat.

Commission staff is also concerned that the prepared biological information is specific to certain issues, such as tarplant, and is not a true holistic documentation of the biological resources that must be analyzed by the Commission. The Bolsa Chica mesa is ecologically linked to adjacent areas. For example, natural wetlands have many ecological linkages to adjacent uplands and removing the opportunity for such linkages through residential development will impair the functioning of the overall system. Noss, Case, and Fisher ("Evaluation of the Biological Significance of the Bolsa Chica Mesa" November 20, 2002) write, "... To our knowledge, scientific studies documenting the use of adjacent uplands by wetland-dependent species have not been conducted at Bolsa Chica. It is likely that critical ecological interactions such as pollination, seed dispersal, and predator-prey relationships depend on a reasonably intact upland-wetland gradient, yet these interactions have not been studied here or, very thoroughly, in similar systems. ... Given the increasing evidence that very wide upland buffer zones are often required to maintain the ecological integrity of wetlands and other aquatic ecosystems, we believe that the narrow (on the order of 100m) buffer zones proposed by some people for Bolsa Chica are unlikely to be sufficient. ..." Please provide an holistic ecologically based biological study. This documentation must also be reviewed by the California Department of Fish and Game.

Once we receive the requested information, we will evaluate it. However, Hearthside Homes should be aware that additional issues and questions may surface as a result of our review of the information you provide. Many of the points discussed above may require that we meet to discuss the concerns. We recognize that, due to the size of the submittal, there is a potential that some items that we have identified as being necessary may have been included as part of the CDP application submittal and were inadvertently missed. In such cases, we hope that you will identify the location of these items in the submittal.

Though not a filing requirement, we note that the lower bench of the mesa was not included as part of the development proposal. Historically, development proposals for the mesa have included both the upper and lower benches. We are interested in knowing what your plans are for the lower bench? Please explain why the lower bench was not included in this application and what your plans are for the lower bench. I will be pleased to meet with you to facilitate the progress of filing the application.

Sincerely,

Stephen Rynas, AICP
Orange County Area Supervisor

¹Commission staff notes that Attachment 7 (Master Site Plan) contains in Sections 2.6 and 3.1 information on coastal access and public trails, however it is unclear if these sections are meant to fulfill the requirements of Condition #37.

²Commission staff notes that Attachment 7 (Master Site Plan) contains in Sections 2.7, 2.8 and 3.1 information concerning how natural areas will be managed, however it is unclear if these sections are meant to fulfill the requirements of Condition #38.

³County Conditions 51, 54, 55, and 58 are all related to archeology, cultural and paleontological resources. Please see page 10 which further discusses submission requirements.

⁴Section 5.4 of Exhibit 7 acknowledges the existence of a guard house but does not explicitly describe if the public would or would not be excluded from accessing the community. Some private communities exclude the public and others do not. The project description must resolve the issue of whether the public would be allowed in and on what basis.

⁵Calculations at appropriate nodal points showing maximum volume, velocity, and duration of runoff resulting from, at least, the 100-year storm event (calculations for the 2, 5, 10, 25, and 50 year events as well).