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

February 21, 2003

Ron Metzler
Vice-President, Planning and Development
Shea Homes
603 South Valencia
Brea, CA 92823-6346

RE:   Coastal Development Permit Application 5-03-029 (Parkside Estates)

Dear Mr. Metzler:

On January 24, 2003, this office received the submittal of an application for a Commission-issued coastal development permit for a residential project, commonly referred to as Parkside Estates, proposed by Shea Homes. The Parkside Estates project, in summary, requests the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps Nos. 15377 and 15419; the construction of 170 residential units (including associated infrastructure); 273,190 cubic yards of grading; channel improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (EGGW); and the dedication and improvement of an 8.2 acre public park. The project site, overall, is fifty (50) acres in size.

The fifty acre project site can be generally characterized as consisting of two parcels. One is the County Parcel (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15419), which is approximately five acres in size. This parcel is within unincorporated Orange County and is also within the Bolsa Chica LCP segment. The Commission retains coastal development permitting authority for the County Parcel as this parcel does not have a certified LCP.

The other parcel is commonly referred to as the City Parcel (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15377), which is approximately forty-five1 acres in size. The City Parcel is within the corporate limits of the City of Huntington Beach (City) and is within the City's Local Coastal Program area, however, 40.5 acres of the City Parcel was deferred certification when the Commission acted on the City's LCP. Consequently, the Commission retains coastal development permitting authority over the area of deferred certification. Because VTTM #15377 covers both the City's certified LCP area and the area of deferred certification, only the portion of VTTM #15377 within the area of deferred certification is part of this CDP application.

Additionally, this project is related to two other pending Commission actions. First, the City of Huntington Beach has submitted a local coastal program amendment to incorporate both the County Parcel (following annexation) and that part of the City Parcel (40.5 acres) that is not now within the City's certified LCP jurisdiction into the City's certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). Second, the City approved a coastal development permit (CDP# 96-18) for park improvements on approximately 4.5 acres of land that is within the City's LCP jurisdiction, which is to be carried out by Shea Homes, as part of the Parkside Estates project2. The City's CDP has been appealed and, depending on the outcome of the Substantial Issue hearing, may be acted on by the Commission. To the extent feasible, these pending Commission actions will be processed concurrently with this CDP application.

The standard of review for evaluating this CDP application (separate from the two related projects discussed above) is the Coastal Act since neither the County nor City parcel is controlled by a certified local coastal program. Nevertheless, in light of the City's submission of an LCP amendment to incorporate the County and City Parcels into the City's certified LCP, the City's LCP will be used as guidance for evaluating the adequacy of this CDP application.

The purpose of this letter is twofold. First, it is an evaluation of the status of the application submission. Commission staff has reviewed Shea Homes' application for a coastal development permit and determined it to be incomplete for the reasons stated below. Second, this letter is intended to provide guidance project components that Shea Homes may wish to add or delete from this CDP application plus additional information that Shea Homes may wish to offer.

  1. CLARIFICATION OF THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION

    1. UNPERMITTED GRADING: A request for authorization of the unpermitted grading which occurred in mid-December 2002 was included as part of this permit application. Commission staff recommends that this component of the project be processed as a separate permit, in advance of the rest of the proposed development. Since the unpermitted grading has adversely affected biological resources, restoration needs to be accomplished in a timely manner, which can be expedited through a separate permit application.

    2. PARKSIDE ESTATES PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Coastal development permits are granted based on a clearly defined project, which includes "ready-to-build" construction plans. Proposed changes to plans approved by the Commission are formally evaluated through the amendment process. In addition, the applicant may modify (amend) a project after it is submitted to the Commission, but before it is acted on by the Commission. The Commission does not typically approve projects on a "conceptual" basis where the applicant has the autonomy to subsequently choose an alternate building scenario or to modify the proposed development as approved by the Commission. (See 14C.C.R. § 13053.5(a))

      Though Section II, Item #2 of the filled in permit application form states that the intent of the development is to construct 170 single family residences, the supplementary information implies that the proposed project is conceptual in nature since it consists of different residential development scenarios based on whether or not the annexation of the County parcel into the City of Huntington Beach takes place or not. For example, one set of vesting tentative tract maps shows a development of 171 residential lots and another set of vesting tentative tract maps shows a residential development of 161 residential lots. Please select one of the development scenarios as Shea Homes' proposed development, to be analyzed by Commission staff, and for consideration by the Commission.

    3. INCOMPLETE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project description for the Parkside Estates development proposal appears incomplete. Commission staff acknowledges that Section II, Item #2 of the application form does not provide sufficient room to provide more than a brief summary of the proposed development. To provide greater detail. Shea Homes submitted a copy of a December 23, 2002 letter from the City of Huntington Beach describing the development in greater detail. In addition. Shea Homes submitted a copy of the final Parkside Estates EIR No. 97-2 (FEIR).

      Nevertheless, it appears that not all components of the overall development proposal have been disclosed, nor adequately described. For example, as completed. Section II, Item #2 of the submitted application form references offsite infrastructure improvements and park improvements which should have been subsequently discussed in greater detail in the City's December 23, 2002 letter or Shea Homes' cover letter of January 23, 2003. Next, according to the FEIR, improvements are being proposed to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (EGGW)3, yet the work on EGGW was not adequately disclosed or discussed in the CDP application binder. Please provide a complete comprehensive description of the Parkside Estates development proposal4.

      Furthermore, a review of the FEIR disclosed additional project components that need to be part of the detailed project description if Shea Homes intends them to be part of its project under this CDP application. Please review the mitigation measures contained in Table B of the FEIR for project elements that must be included in the project description. For example, drainage/hydrology Mitigation Measure Number 3 (Page 2-13) recommends the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan5. No such plan was submitted.

      Please review all aspects of the development proposal components and prepare a written document comprehensively describing each of these components. Likewise, please submit any development plans, such as, but not limited to, park improvement plans, grading plans, drainage plans, haul routes for the importation of fill, and the proposed improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel.

  2. PROJECT PLANS

    A complete set of project plans adequately describing the Parkside Estates project in its entirety has apparently not been submitted. Section IV, Item #7 of the application form requires the submission, drawn to scale, of the following types of sample plans: site plans, floor plans, grading, drainage, erosion control, and landscape plans.

    1. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT #15419: Section II, Item #2 of the completed application form states that 170 single family residences will be constructed. This conflicts with VTTM #15419 and VTTM #15337, which show a combined total of 171 single family lots. Apparently this reduction from 171 to 170 residential lots is a result of the City action of October 21, 2002 where the City mandated the elimination of Lot #4 from VTTM #15419. However, the submitted version of VTTM #15419 shows a Lot #4 and cites a total of 171 residential lots on the two combined maps. Though not a filing requirement, will Shea Homes be preparing an updated vesting tentative tract map? Reconciling the City's conditions of approval with the Commission's decision can be managed through the Commission's conditions of approval.

      The notes to VTTM #15419 and VTTM #15377 refer to a gross area of 44.96 acres and a net area of 44.61 acres for the City Parcel. Please explain the difference between these figures.

      Please provide, as a filing requirement, a version of VTTM #15419 which delineates the portions of VTTM #15419 under the City's LCP jurisdiction and which portions are within the area of deferred certification. Additionally, please provide a statistical table identifying the acreages devoted to each land use by LCP jurisdiction. Apparently, Commission staff has conflicting data in this regard. Commission staff understands, based on correspondence with City personnel, that 4.5 acres of the City Parcel are in the certified area, and thus, the remaining 40.5 acres of VTTM #15419 are in the City's area of deferred certification (36.8 to be designated Low Density Residential RL-7, and 3.7 to be designated Open Space-Park). However, City Resolution 2002-123, Section 3(A) only references 39.6 acres in the area of deferred certification (36.8 to be designated Low Density Residential RL-7, and 2.8 acres to be designated Open Space-Park). A land use statistical summary will clarify the acreage figures.

    2. LANDSCAPING PLAN: Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act requires that development adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat, park, and recreation areas be designed and sited to minimize impacts to those areas. City LCP Policy C 7.1.3 requires that development adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, parks, and recreation areas be sited and designed to minimize impacts to those areas. City LCP Policy C 7.1.4 requires that development adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and wetlands have at least a 100 foot buffer. One method of minimizing a development's adverse impact on adjacent environmentally sensitive habitat areas is through the use of landscaping which makes use of predominately native vegetation and drought tolerant plants that are non-invasive. Such a landscaping plan was not submitted6. Please provide a detailed landscaping plan as a filing requirement. Commission staff recommends that it also delineate buffer proposed between the environmentally sensitive habitat areas and the proposed development.

    3. PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN: A conceptual site plan (one copy rather than the required two) of the proposed park improvements was provided in the submission package. The conceptual park plan is inadequate for verifying what park improvements will actually be constructed. For example, the proposed tot lot is simply identified by dashed lines and the proposed trees are simply identified as "specimen" trees. Additionally, Exhibit 5a of the FEIR is labeled "Conceptual Park Plan". Please provide a park plan showing the improvements to be made and a landscaping plan specifically identifying the vegetation to be used. The landscaping plan, based on the park's adjacency to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, should consist of native plants and/or non-native plants which are non-invasive.

    4. CONCEPTUAL TRAILS AND BIKEWAY PLAN: Exhibit 5b of the FEIR shows a "Conceptual Trails and Bikeways Plan". Are the trail improvements part of the proposed Parkside Estates CDP application? If so, has this trail plan received local approval, specifically from the Orange County Flood Control District. Please review Section 30601.5 of the Coastal Act and Section 13053.5(b) of the Commission's regulation (in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations) and provide evidence of Shea Homes' legal ability to undertake work on property not owned by Shea Homes.

    5. PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN: The existence of the conceptual park plan and conceptual trails and bike plan leads to the larger question of a public access and amenity plan for the entire Parkside Estates project. A defined public access and amenity plan was not submitted. Though not a filing requirement, will Shea Homes be incorporating the park improvements and trail improvements, plus other public amenities into a defined public access plan? If so, please provide a public access plan, which includes both graphics and a narrative.

    6. EAST GARDEN GROVE WINTERSBURG CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: A plan/construction drawings showing the proposed improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel was not submitted as part of the submission package. Please provide a written narrative and plans for the proposed improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel. Also provide verification of any Federal or local approvals that may be necessary.

      Please note that the Commission's post-certification map depicting the City's LCP area delineates the north bank of the EGGW Channel as the boundary between the area of deferred certification and the City's certified LCP area. Furthermore, a letter (Tab #6 of the submittal binder) from Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. to the ACOE notes that the EGGW Channel is tidally influenced. Once plans are received, which describe the EGGW Channel improvements in greater detail, they will be forwarded to the Commission's mapping unit for a determination on whether the City or the Commission has CDP authority for this part of the overall development proposal.

    7. PLAN 1, PLAN 2, PLAN 3 DRAWINGS BY BASSENIAN LAGONI: Section IV, Item #7 of the application form requires the submission of plans drawn to scale. Though the submitted residential plans drawn by Bassenian Lagoni show the floor plans and elevations, they are deficient in that no scales are shown and they lack an adequate depiction of the dimensions. Please submit residential plans which depict the drawings scale and include dimensions of the residential structures, such as room sizes in plan view and dimensions of the structure in elevation view.

    8. REDUCED SET OF PLANS: Section IV, Item #7 of the application form requires the submission of a reduced set of plans (8.5" x 11"). A reduced set of plans was not submitted. Some graphics were submitted as 11" x 17" in size. Please submit a full set of plans reduced to 8.5" x 11" in size.

  3. WETLAND EVALUATIONS

    Wetlands are generally considered environmentally sensitive habitat. Consequently, the activities that can be conducted within a wetland are constrained by Sections 30240 and 30233 of the Coastal Act and City LCP Policies C 6.1.20, C 7.1.2, and C 7.1.3. Additionally, City LCP Policy C 7.1.4 requires that new development contiguous to wetlands include a buffer zone of at least 100 feet.

    Tab #8 of Volume IIA of the FEIR contains a May 21, 2002 wetland delineation conducted by LSA Associates for the County Parcel. A wetland delineation was not submitted for the City parcel7. A current wetland delineation appears appropriate since the farming lessee found it essential to grade a drainage ditch to prevent ponding on the City parcel, Commission staff (in the past) has observed ponding adjacent to the EGGW channel, and Commission staff received on February 19, 2003 photos from a member of the public alleging that the City parcel contains the following wetland plants: brass buttons (cotula coronopifolia) and saltgrass (distichlis spicata). Please provide a current wetland delineation based on both the Commission's wetland criteria and based on actual field survey work for the City parcel.

  4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

    The FEIR concluded that the proposed residential project would not have an adverse impact on biological resources due to the disturbed nature of the site and the use of the City parcel for agriculture. Nevertheless, the evidence we have reviewed to date indicates that sensitive biological resources do exist both on-site and in the surrounding area, and the FEIR has apparently not adequately assessed the interaction of the proposed project with those resources. Thus, we cannot address whether the proposed development has been designed to minimize adverse impacts to biological resources consistent with Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act. For example, an active park is proposed, but the impact of the active park on biological resources has not been specifically evaluated. For instance, would active use of the park discourage birds from nesting in vicinity? Additionally, the project site is adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat, but there is no discussion of how domestic pets would be managed when the residential development is constructed to minimize the predation of native species.

    Please provide a biological assessment documenting how the conversion of the project site from open space to residential development and active park use would affect local biological resources. This assessment should also document how the impacts associated with the residential project (such as noise, lighting, human activity, and pets) have been minimized (for example, through development setbacks to avoid biological impacts) and should contain mitigation measures, such as a long term habitat maintenance plan and domestic pet plan for minimizing impacts. These reports and mitigation measures should be reviewed, if possible, by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to their submission to the Commission.

    The biological reports and underlying data appear dated. Commission staff notes that Appendix G contains a biological report and wetlands evaluation dated in 1997. Since 1997, new reports and data have been released. Some of the new biological data suggests, for example, that the conversion of open space to residential development may increase raptor predation of sensitive species in the lowland areas of Bolsa Chica. Though not a filing requirement. Commission staff recommends that the implications of the residential development on biological resources that are adjacent to the proposed residential development be evaluated and submitted.

  5. WATER QUALITY

    The preservation of water quality has been a growing concern. The proposed project will result in an increase of impervious surface and urbanization resulting in the discharge of additional water (potentially polluted) into Outer Bolsa Bay which is an ecological reserve. If not properly mitigated, the discharge of polluted water into the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve could have an adverse impact on marine resources. Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act mandate that marine resources be maintained and, where feasible, enhanced to promote biological productivity and protect human health. City LCP Policies C 6.1.1, C 6.1.2, C 6.1.4, C 6.1.6, C 6.1.15, and C 6.1.18 require that marine resources be maintained and where feasible, enhanced to promote biological productivity and protect human health.

    Two components of the overall development proposal which must be submitted are a Water Quality Management Plan, detailing the post-construction stormwater and dry weather polluted runoff management, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, describing the construction-phase sediment, erosion, and chemical control plans. No such plans for construction or post-construction water quality management were submitted to describe the mitigation measures to be implemented by Shea Homes' to assure that the proposed development would not adversely impact coastal water quality and associated coastal resources.

    Please submit a Water Quality Management Plan describing the site design, source control, and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented to ensure that impacts to water quality are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The plans should be based upon a specific site plan and should take into account, for example, land uses of the development, expected pollutants and pollutant loads, receiving water quality and impairment, and discharges to or potential downstream impacts to ESHA. The WQMP should include information regarding proposed drainage improvements, a comparison to existing (pre-development) conditions, and the inspection and maintenance schedules for BMPs. As there may exist some ambiguity regarding the exact project description and development plans, noted on Pages 2 and 3 of this letter, it should be mentioned that Water Quality Management Plans should be based on—and in all likelihood should inform—the specific details of a particular development. Therefore, consistency with site plans is necessary in a submitted WQMP.

    Please submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which describes the BMPs for sediment, erosion, and chemical control during construction. Additionally, please provide a plan (approved by the RWQCB) for dewatering the project site as recommended on Page 3-21 of the FEIR. These too should be based on the specific details of a development and should be consistent with the proposed site plans.

  6. FARMLAND

    The City parcel is currently being used for agricultural purposes. Sections 30241, and 30242 of the Coastal Act require the preservation of land for agricultural purposes. Additionally, Section 30250 limits new residential development to areas able to accommodate residential development. As noted in the next section below, the project site may not be suitable for residential development. Please review Sections 30241, 30242, and 30250 of the Coastal Act and provide a narrative describing how the conversion of agricultural land to residential development would be consistent with these sections of the Coastal Act. Even if not prime agricultural land. Sections 30241 and 30242 of the Coastal Act still promote preservation of agriculture use.

    Enclosure #6 of the City's LCPA submittal notes that the proposed residential development will result in the loss of farmland and that the State Department of Conservation does not appear to consider the site as prime or unique farmland. Please provide all relevant materials regarding the State Department of Conservation's determination.

  7. SUITABLITY OF THE PROJECT SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

    To raise the proposed residential development out of the flood-plain, approximately 268,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed for importation. Additionally, the FEIR notes that the subject site will need dewatering, has liquefaction potential, and that the existing soils quality appears to be unsatisfactory for residential development. These matters raise several concerns related to the suitability of the project site for residential development that need to be addressed.

    First, Section 30250 requires that new residential development be "located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have a significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources." The importation of 268,000 cubic yards of fill to raise the residential development out of a floodplain, the lack of soil suitability, the proposed remedial grading to resolve the liquefaction potential, and the necessity for a protective device implies that the project site, as it currently exists, is not able to accommodate the proposed residential development without significant engineering. Additionally, the incremental filling in of a floodplain would contribute, over the tong term, to a significant adverse effect on coastal resources.

    The project site's current use for agricultural purposes demonstrates that the project site is suitable for agriculture and is consistent with Sections 30241 and 30242 of the Coastal Act. Additionally, City LCP Policies C 1.1.9, C 6.1.18, C 6.1.20, C 7.1.1, C 7.2.1, and C 10.1.14, in summary, call for the restoration of floodplain areas to their natural width, avoiding the use of protective devices, and the reestablishment of tidal flows to wetland areas. Maintaining and restoring the functionality of a floodplain8 is good planning. Please provide a narrative which will provide the factual details of how the project site can accommodate9 the proposed residential development.

    Next, the proposed development will require the use of a "seawall" (retaining wall). This seawall (retaining wall) will constitute a protective device for a development which has not yet been built. The Commission has consistently interpreted Section 30253 of the Coastal Act as not allowing the construction of a protective device to protect new development. City LCP Policy C 10.1.14 requires that new development avoid the use of protective structures. Please provide an evaluation of the necessity for the proposed protective device and the potential for an alternative development scenario which does not utilize a protective device.

    The proposed importation of fill raises the issue of the haul route and the traffic impacts created by trucks carrying fill to the project site. A plan describing the haul route10 and obligatory traffic management requirements was not submitted. Please submit a plan showing the haul route, the time of year and hours of operation, traffic management requirements, and any necessary mitigation measures.

  8. FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN

    Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act requires that development adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat and park and recreation areas be designed and sited to minimize impacts to those areas. In many cases, development adjacent to open space requires the preparation of an Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) approved fuel modification plan. The submission of a fuel modification plan, if required by OCFA, is a filing requirement as can have an effect on how the proposed subdivision is laid out, the extent of buffers, and potential impacts to native vegetation resulting from required OCFA clearance requirements.

    Has OCFA reviewed the tentative tract maps and made any decision regarding whether or not a fuel modification plan would be required? If a fuel modification plan has been required and prepared, please submit the plan. If it has been required by OCFA, but not yet prepared, please complete and submit the plan following OCFA approval.

  9. CULTURAL RESOURCES

    Section 30244 of the Coastal Act requires that where development would adversely impact archeological or paleontological resources identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, that reasonable mitigation will be required. Furthermore, City of Huntington Beach LCP Policies C 5.1.1, C 5.1 2, C 5.1 3, C 5.1.4, C 5.1.5, and C 5.1.5 establish a variety of policies for protecting archeological and paleontological resources.

    The submission package does not explicitly contain a subsurface testing plan or contingency plan for how archeological or paleontological resources would be protected/mitigated should they be encountered during site preparation. According to Section 5.9 of the FEIR for the Parkside Estates Project, the project area includes either portions or the entirety of three archeological sites (CA-ORA-83, CA-ORA-1308, and CA-ORA-1309). In describing these sites, the FEIR notes that these sites have been previously investigated, that CA-ORA-1308 and CA-ORA-1309 may not qualify as archeological sites, and that these sites are highly disturbed. The FEIR notes that an evaluation of the proposed tentative tract map concluded that the proposed residential development would not result in impacts to CA-ORA-83. However, to confirm the significance or lack of significance .for CA-ORA-1308 and CA-ORA-1309, the FEIR proposed, as a mitigation measure, subsurface testing to determine the horizontal boundaries of these sites to make an assessment as to the significance of these sites; and if found to be significant, the mitigation measures that will be necessary.

    Commission staff recommends that a separate coastal development permit be submitted for the subsurface archeological work and the results of the investigation be submitted as part of this permit application. A separate coastal development permit is necessary for the subsurface archeological work, as the results of this work may have an effect on the final layout of the proposed residential development.

    Please provide a copy of the evaluation documenting that the proposed development under this permit application will not have an impact on CA-ORA-83. Additionally, even if the archeological resources are deemed not significant, this application should include a contingency plan for how an unexpected cultural resource find will be treated.

    All cultural resource documentation submitted to the Commission should be peer reviewed by the archeological community and reviewed by the appropriate Native American group. Any comments provided by the archeological community and/or Native Americans on these documents must also be submitted to the Commission.

  10. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

    The application package included a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. This study is dated February 2, 1998. Commission staff requires that any required site specific studies (such as geotechnical investigations) be not more than one year old at the time a CDP application is submitted. This study is now five years old. To assure that current and relevant geotechnical information has been provided and there has not been a substantial change since 1998, Pacific Soils (or another geotechnical firm) can submit a letter validating the prior geotechnical investigation as being appropriate to use in 2003.

  11. VERIFICATION OF ALL OTHER PERMITS, PERMISSIONS. OR APPROVALS APPLIED FOR OR GRANTED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY

    Section IV, Item #10 of the permit application form requires the submission of verification that all other permits, permissions, or approvals required by a public agency be obtained. As a result of reviewing the submission package, Commission staff was unable to verify that the applicant has complied with this requirement.

    1. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY (OCFA): Development which is adjacent to open space may be subject to a Fuel Modification Plan based on the fire hazard potential. Please provide evidence of whether or not the Orange County Fire Authority would or would not require a Fuel Modification Plan. Should a Fuel Modification Plan be required, an OCFA approved plan must be submitted as a filing requirement for this development proposal.

    2. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS: Based on a review of the submission package (Tab #1), an approval from the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act has been obtained by Shea Homes' (subject to conditions) to fill 1.5 acres of waters Navigable-in-Law along the bank of the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel. However, the copy of the submitted ACOE letter of September 28, 2001 letter is unsigned. Commission staff also notes that FEIR Volume IIA, Tab #6 contains a signed August 11, 1999 ACOE letter apparently authorizing the same work. Please provide an explanation on the Shea Homes' approval status under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act with the Corps.

      Additionally, (Tab #6 of the submission binder) contains an ACOE letter of August 23, 2000 concerning a determination of the jurisdictional extent of waters subject to ACOE jurisdiction. This letter cites a Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. submittal of June 29, 2000 depicting the jurisdictional extent of waters of the United States, which the ACOE concurred with. Please submit a copy of the graphic depicting the jurisdictional extent of the waters of the United States11. Furthermore, this ACOE letter of August 23, 2000 goes on to state that if the Shea Homes development proposal should propose to discharge material into the EGGW Channel that a permit from the ACOE would be needed. What is the need/status of a Section 404 permit from the Corps?

      As formal Army Corps of Engineers approval would follow Commission CDP action on the Parkside Estates project, please provide a copy of the application made to the ACOE and any preliminary approvals, including any preliminary conditions of approval from the Army Corps of Engineers.

      Commission staff notes that the September 26, 2001 ACOE letter has an exhibit depicting slough areas prepared by Hunsaker and Associates. This exhibit notes that the slough surface area is 1.5 acres in size. Please confirm if these are the historic wetlands to be filled in under the ACOE approval of letter of September 26, 2001. Furthermore, as some of the slough area is within the County Parcel, will the slough areas on the County Parcel also be filled in under the current 170 unit residential proposal?

    3. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE: The proposed residential development is adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitats. The proposed project, through the elimination of open-space, construction activities, and subsequent long term human habitation (when the project is complete) may have adverse impacts on biological resources requiring the approval of the Department of Fish and Game and/or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Please provide evidence that the proposed development has been reviewed by both the Department of Fish and Game and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a determination on whether any permits from them would be necessary and to determine if they have any concerns with the proposed development which need to be mitigated. If any permits are to be required by these agencies, please provide us with a status report.

    4. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD: To minimize the discharge of polluted waters from the project site into Outer Bolsa Bay, Shea Homes will need to implement a variety of construction and post construction BMPS, which must be outlined in WQMPs. Commission staff also notes that the proposed remedial grading will require dewatering12. These WQMPs and the proposed dewatering will require the approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. When submitting the water quality management plans and the dewatering plan to the Commission, also submit verification that the Regional Water Quality Control Board has approved the plans. No verification was submitted with this application submittal.
Commission staff will review the requested information upon receipt. However, Shea 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. I will be pleased to meet with you to facilitate the progress of filing this application.

Sincerely,

Stephen Rynas, AICP
Orange County Area Supervisor

1Approximately 4.5 acres of VTTM #15377 are within the City of Huntington Beach's certified LCP jurisdiction. The City approved this 4.5 acre portion of VTTM #15377 through CDP #96-18 which has subsequently been appealed to the Commission. The remaining 40.5 acres are within the area of deferred certification.

2The City's CDP #96-18 actually approved the entire Parkside Estates development proposal. However, the City's CDP approval is only valid for the portion of the development where the City has a certified LCP, which is the 4.5 acres of existing park within the City's boundaries. Since the City does not have CDP authority for the remaining 40.5 acres within its boundaries, or for the five acres in the unincorporated County Parcel, the City approval for the parts of the project in these areas constitutes an approval in concept. CDP application 5-03-029 covers the 40.5 acres in the City and the five acres in the County, which are in the Commission's CDP jurisdiction.

3According to the Commission's post-certification map for Huntington Beach delineating the area of deferred certification, the north bank of the EGGW channel constitutes the boundary between the City's certified LCP and the area of deferred certification. When plans are submitted showing in greater detail the proposed improvements to the EGGW channel, a determination will need to be done by the Commission's Mapping Unit to determine whether the City or the Commission has CDP authority for the EGGW channel improvements.

4 In addition, to the extent that Shea Homes is proposing development on land that it does not own, please review Section 30601.5 of the Coastal Act and Section 13053.5(b) of the Commission's regulations (in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations) and provide evidence of Shea Homes' legal ability to undertake work on property not owned by Shea Homes

5The "Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan" in Volume IIA, Tab #5 of the FEIR does not qualify as a Water Quality Management Plan.

6Exhibit 28 of the FEIR shows a conceptual landscaping plan. This landscaping plan is inadequate as it is unstated if it is to be considered part of the CDP application and it lacks any identification of the species of plants.

7Page 5-160 of the FEIR notes wetland delineations by Sanders and Dobson & Assoc. for the City Parcel. These delineations are over a year old and must be updated. Additionally, copies of the supporting background work were not submitted. Please provide copies of all biological reports cited in the FEIR.

8Commission staff recognizes that the EGGW Channel has been channelized. Nevertheless, the project site is part of the floodplain and restoring the floodplain's functionality would reduce flooding potential.

9Please be aware that virtually any project can be constructed, given sufficient money and engineering. The standard of review for a proposed development are the Coastal Act policies and the City's certified LCP (used as guidance), not the engineering feasibility.

10Exhibit 15 of the FEIR shows a conceptual haul route. As a conceptual haul route plan, this exhibit is inadequate for fully documenting the haul route plan.

11A copy of the June 29, 2000 Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. letter was provided along with exhibit 4. However, the remaining figures/exhibits, such as a cited Figure 5 were not provided.

12Page 3-21 of the FEIR.