Alternative 9 differs from Alternative 8 in the proposed base flood elevations (4.5 feet versus 10.9 feet). This alternative plan avoids all County eucalyptus trees (including the eucalyptus ESHA located in the County portion of the project site, please refer to Exhibit 63) by avoiding development within the County portion and assuming designation of California Coastal Commission Conservation on the County site. Under this alternative, the number of units in the City parcel have also been reduced by 18 units to accommodate buffers which assist in off setting impacts of the revised base flood elevation for the site. Considering the above discussed factors, this alternative results in a total project dwelling unit reduction of 45 from 206 to 161 dwelling units (refer to Exhibits 64 , Conceptual Land Use Plan 161 lots; Exhibit 66 , Tentative Tract Map (County); Exhibit 67 , Conceptual Landscape Plan and Exhibit 72 , Tentative Tract Map (City) in this section). It should be noted that in order to reduce duplication, only those exhibits, which contain different information than the prior Alternative 8 are shown.
The Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR) results in the following changes to the entire project. First, the alternative plan will have a total of 77 estate lots with a minimum size of 6,000 square feet and average size of 7,362 square feet and 84 parkside lots with a minimum size of 5,000 square feet and average size of 5,651 square feet versus 95 estate lots (average 7,030 sq.ft.) and 111 parkside lots (average 5,770 sq.ft.) as identified with the proposed plan. Second, the overall alternative plan will have a gross density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) versus a gross density of 4.13 du/ac with the proposed plan. Third, the alternative plan provides for 16.1 acres of park / open space use versus 8.2 acres of park / open space under the proposed plan. Fourth, the alternative land use plan provides for avoidance and preservation in place of the remnant pickleweed area and the EPA delineated pocket wetland area. Fifth, the alternative land use plan provides for a 767.3-foot buffer from the closest proposed residential use to the portion of the ESHA located on-site versus a 60-foot buffer identified with the originally proposed plan. Lastly, the alternative land use plan includes a 133-foot separation (including a 50-foot wide paseo park) from the existing residential units along Kenilworth to the closest proposed residential units.
The proposed applications discussed (i.e.. General Plan, zoning maps and CUP) will be revised to reflect this alternative layout.
Under this scenario. City staff would also consider the non-annexation
alternative. Within this non-annexation alternative, the total number of
residential dwelling units proposed within the City of Huntington Beach portion
of the project would remain unchanged (i.e., 161 units), because no units
are assumed within the County based upon the CCC Conservation designation.
The following is a review of potential environmental effects of the Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR) described above and as shown in the above referenced exhibits.
It should be noted that the Mitigation Measures contained in the original
Draft EIR and referenced in the following sections are included in their
entirety within Section 4.0 of this document.
This alternative would result in land use impacts similar to those associated with the original project. Similar to the original project, the alternative plan may result in impacts related to the provision of affordable housing. Mitigation Measure 1 to ensure that no inconsistencies with the City's Affordable Housing policy would still apply to this alternative plan. Density of the original project would be reduced from 4.13 du/ac proposed under the original project to 3.2 du/ac under the Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA). This alternative is consistent with the adopted City of Huntington Beach General Plan land use designation of RL (Residential, Low Density) and with the City of Huntington Beach applicable goals and policies of the General Plan.
Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would result in no
development within the 4.5-acre County parcel consistent with the CCC Conservation
November 2000 decision to redesignate this parcel as conservation. Because
a lawsuit is pending on the current Bolsa Chica LCP designations, the County
portion of the project site is currently designated as MLR (Medium low residential,
6.5 - 12.5 dwelling units per acre). However, no development would occur
under this alternative, therefore, no plan consistency impacts would result.
Although the Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR) would result in the development of 45 less units than the original project, the alternative still may be perceived as having a substantial, demonstrable, negative aesthetic effect due to the reduction of viewable open space areas. The increases in pad elevations (ranging from 5.5 feet to 11.5 feet (NAVD 88) - 5.5 feet adjacent to the Kenilworth homes and along the northern portion of the site and gradually increasing to 11.4 feet towards southwestern portion of the site adjacent to the C05) associated with this alternative are discussed in the paragraphs below. As stated above, the alternative plan would include 7.7 additional acres of open space. Approximately, 2 acres of the 7.7 additional acres comprise a 50-foot wide linear paseo park, which will act as a buffer between the existing Kenilworth residential units and the proposed residential units (refer to Exhibits 73 - 74b). The paseo park also provides pedestrian access to the proposed 8.2-acre public park (4.1 acres of passive public park and 4.1 acres of active public park) at the northwest corner of the site. Overall the reduction of total dwelling units (i.e., 47 45 units less) and addition of 7.7 acres of park space will assist in offsetting the aesthetics impacts associated with increased pad elevations across the site. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 under Aesthetics would still apply to this alternative. Additionally, the decrease in elevation, compared to Alternatives 6 and 8 is due to a new detailed flood insurance study of the C05, commissioned by the applicant. Along the northern portion of the site the proposed pad elevation of 5.5 feet (NAVD 88) (base flood elevation of 4.5 feet (NAVD 88), developed by the detailed study) is considerably lower than the base flood elevation of 10.9 feet (NAVD 88) under the previous alternative, and is not anticipated to create a significant impact.
The following outlines the visual impacts to the existing adjacent homes
located off of Kenilworth. The original plan analyzed in the Draft EIR depicted
the proposed homes across from Kenilworth at pad elevations of 0.08 feet
to 2.1 feet (NAVD 88). These proposed homes were to be located/setback (rear
yard setback) 25 to 35 feet from the existing Kenilworth homes. Under the
Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Projected Base Flood Elevation
(updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR), the proposed pad elevations would increase
to an elevation of 5.5 feet (NAVD 88) along Kenilworth (please refer to Exhibits
73
, 74a
and 74b
, Key Map and Site Cross Sections on the following pages). Although this
increase is 2 to 4 feet above the original plans, the proposed homes would
be located 133 to 154 feet from the existing Kenilworth homes. This is 108
to 119 feet increase in separation from the original plan. The 133 foot separation
is comprised of a 50-foot wide linear paseo park, which lies immediately
adjacent to the existing Kenilworth homes; a 56-foot roadway (i.e., "B" Street),
which lies to the south of the paseo park; and a 27-foot front yard setback
of the proposed Parkside Estates homes. At the project entry the 133-foot
separation expands to 154 feet. This expansion occurs within the paseo park
(i.e., 87 feet vs. 50 feet) and the entry roadway which includes a 15-foot
landscaped median (i.e., 67 feet vs. 56 feet).
In order to provide a realistic analysis of the potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed alternative on the existing residential development along Kenilworth, a visual simulation study was conducted by Focus 360. The study involved taking a series of photographs of the existing conditions (please refer to Exhibit 55 , All Alternatives Visual Simulations - Existing Condition (under Alternative 6)). The first view on Exhibit 55 , is taken from the rear wall/fence line of an existing home (5322 Kenilworth Drive). The photo depicts a panoramic view across the project site to the C05 Channel. The second photo on Exhibit 55 was taken from the corner of Graham Street looking west, depicting the rear wall along the existing residential units. The photo also shows the backs of the existing Kenilworth homes and the existing vegetation, which currently interrupts the view across the project site. Because of this existing vegetation and in order to provide a "worse case" visual analysis, the photograph of the existing project site was taken from the Kenilworth home rear wall/fence on the Shea property.
The existing condition view ( top photo on Exhibit 55 ) was then utilized to build the visual simulation for the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR and the proposed alternative (please refer to Exhibit 62 , Alternatives 7 & 9 - Visual Simulations - Reduced Density Alternative -updated FEMA with LOMR (under Alternative 7)). Exhibit 62 shows the proposed alternatives 7 and 9, which consist of projected floodplain elevations of 4.5 feet (NAVD 88) along with a simulation of the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR. The simulation shows that the higher pad elevations of the proposed alternative do not create any adverse impacts on the existing homes' privacy and views. The proposed 133-foot separation including a 50-foot landscaped buffer (i.e., paseo park) in this alternative creates more privacy for the existing homes on Kenilworth as compared to the original project. The simulations depict a more aesthetically pleasing view of the proposed alternative's homes' front yards versus the original project's homes' rear yards.
Based upon the above analysis and exhibits included herein, this alternative would result in similar aesthetic impacts as the originally proposed project. Although the pad elevations are higher with this alternative plan (i.e., 2 to 4 feet), the separation is greater (i.e., 108 to 119 feet) and serves to offset the increase in pad elevations.
This alternative plan would preserve the majority of eucalyptus trees located on the City portion of the site by locating the trees within a park, similar to the original project. Only those trees on the City parcel that have been designated within the Arborist Report as requiring removal would be removed. The rationale for removing dead or dying trees is provided within the Arborist reports, dated September 29, 1996 and September 1998, respectively. The report prepared for the grove located in the City Parcel is located in Appendix G of the Draft EIR and Appendix B of this document, and the report prepared for the grove located in the County Parcel is located in Appendix B in this document. Mitigation Measure 3 under Aesthetics would still apply to this alternative to reduce impacts related to the removal of any dead or dying trees onsite to a level less than significant. As stated above, this alternative proposes complete avoidance of all the eucalyptus trees located within the County portion of the site, unlike the original project. Additionally, the alternative provides a 767.3-foot buffer from the closest residential unit to the 0.13 acre on-site ESHA. The original project impacts related to the removal of eucalyptus trees and the onsite ESHA are eliminated by this alternative.
The alternative plan may result in impacts to County-proposed trails, similar to the original project. There are existing and proposed 8-foot wide County trails on south and west sides of the project site. The project also proposes 8-foot wide trails within the site. Exhibit 70 , Conceptual Recreation and Open Space Plan, under Alternative 8 depicts the proposed trail and bike path plan for the 161 unit alternative plan. Mitigation Measure 4 under Aesthetics would still apply to this alternative to reduce impacts to County-proposed trails to a level less than significant.
This alternative will reduce the amount of light and glare in the vicinity of the County parcel compared with the original project due to the fact that development is avoided within the County portion of the project site due to the CCC conservation designation. However, compared with existing conditions the Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with LOMR) will incrementally increase the amount of light and glare in the vicinity of the project site and may impact the Bolsa Chica Preserve area south of the site, similar to but less than the original project. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 under Light and Glare also would apply to this alternative.
Overall, this alternative will result in less than significant aesthetic
impacts after mitigation, similar to the original project.
This alternative would contribute to short-term construction related impacts due to the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic. The short-term impacts would be the same as the original project due to insignificant differences in the amount of dirt hauled (i.e., import) between this alternative and the original project (refer to Table BB ). The same assumptions as in the original project (i.e., worse case scenario - using one entrance/exit off of Graham Street) have been used in assessing the short-term daily trips for grading operations, therefore, the number of truck trips hauling dirt daily and the duration of the grading operation would remain approximately the same (i.e., 6 months) as in the Draft EIR (please refer to Earth Resources). Mitigation Measure 1 regarding short-term impacts would still apply to this alternative. Short-term transportation/circulation impacts will be less than significant after mitigation.
This alternative also would result in vehicular increases on the surrounding
street system, as in the original project. Traffic improvements proposed
for the project area still would be implemented with the alternative plan,
as they also would be necessary with this alternative. However, due to the
fact that this alternative proposes the development of 45 fewer units than
the original project, this plan would generate lower project traffic volumes
than the original project. Long-term impacts associated with transportation/circulation
would be less than the original project. As described in the Draft EIR, the
original project would result in approximately 2,496 Average Daily Trips
(ADT). Based on the proposed 161 dwelling units, this alternative would result
in 1,932 ADT. This represents 564 fewer trips per day or a 23 percent reduction
in ADT. Additionally, this scenario presents a total of 155 trips during
the morning peak hour and 193 trips during the evening peak hour, compared
to 200 and 250 morning and evening peak hour trips for the original project.
Although there would be a reduction in ADT with this alternative plan. Mitigation
Measures 2 through 4 regarding potential impacts to pedestrian, bicycle,
and vehicular safety related to the establishment of access and an onsite
circulation system and Mitigation Measure 5 regarding potential level of
service deficiencies at the intersections of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner
Avenue and Graham Street and Warner Avenue under the 2020 condition would
still apply.
Impacts from the alternative plan associated with short-term air quality would be the same as in the original project, due to only a small increase in the amount of dirt hauled (i.e., import) and an identical duration of grading operation (i.e., 6 months) between this alternative and the original project (please refer to Earth Resources). Any small increased grading activity emissions would be offset by the construction of 45 fewer homes which would result in less construction activity air quality impacts (i.e., emissions from construction equipment, haul vehicles and fugitive dust) than those generated by the original project. The combination of slightly increased fill impact but fewer units built will create peak activity day unmitigated NOx emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds that are slightly less, but fairly similar to the original project (58 percent "excess" for the original project versus 43 percent for this alternative) (refer to Appendix E, Supplemental Air Quality Data). Mitigation Measures 1 through 6 in the Draft EIR regarding short-term impacts during construction activities would still be applicable to this alternative. Application of these Mitigation Measures would reduce short-term construction activity impacts to a level that is less than significant.
This alternative also would result in fewer long-term mobile source emissions
than the original project due to the reduced ADT from 45 less units. Estimation
of mobile source emissions is based on ADT; therefore, since the plan alternative
is estimated to result in a 23 percent reduction in ADT (as described above),
it is assumed that the plan alternative would result in proportionately less
mobile source emissions (i.e., 23 percent). Additionally, the proposed 161
dwelling units proposed under this alternative is below the AQMD air quality
threshold for single family, which is 166 dwelling units (CEQA Air Quality
Handbook, Table 6.2). Therefore, the long-term air quality impacts would
be considered less than significant under this alternative. Mitigation Measures
7 and 8 identified in the Draft EIR to reduce impacts related to long-term
impacts would also apply to this alternative, thereby further reducing the
alternative's incremental contribution to this impact to a level less than
significant.
This alternative would result in the same short-term impacts compared to the original project during construction activities due to immeasurable differences in the amount of dirt hauled (i.e., import) and the duration of grading operation (i.e., 6 months) between this alternative and the original project. Standard City policies and Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 would still apply to this alternative. Short-term noise impacts will be less than significant after mitigation.
Long-term noise impacts due to the increase in traffic would be less than
the original project due to less traffic being generated than the original
project. Estimation of noise impacts due to increase in traffic is based
on ADT; therefore, since the alternative plan is estimated to result in a
23 percent reduction in ADT (as described above), it is assumed that the
plan alternative would result in proportionately less traffic-related noise
impacts (i.e., 23 percent). Although the plan alternative would result in
less traffic-related noise impacts. Mitigation Measure 3 in the Draft EIR
identified to ensure new walls are constructed to achieve maximum noise reduction
would apply to this alternative.
This alternative would result in similar impacts associated with liquefaction
and soil settlement as the original project. The City would require that
any proposed development implement remedial grading activities. There is
an insignificant difference in the amount of dirt hauled (i.e., import) and
the duration of grading operation (i.e., 6 months) between this alternative
and the original project (please refer to Table BB
, Cut, Fill and Import Quantities, above). Similar impacts would be anticipated
with buildout of the alternative plan, and Mitigation Measures 1 through
6 identified in the Draft EIR to reduce impacts still would apply to this
alternative. Grading impacts will be less than significant after mitigation.
This alternative would result in increased surface water runoff due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces less than those of the original project due to the 45 fewer homes and provision of 7.7 additional acres of open space/parkland. The development under this alternative also would require the storm drainage improvements as proposed by the original project (please refer to Exhibit 71 ). Mitigation Measure 1 related to drainage, flooding and cumulative impacts, and Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 related to water quality and cumulative impacts identified in the Draft EIR to reduce impacts also would apply to this alternative.
This alternative's potential impacts related to flooding are discussed below. A majority of this discussion has been summarized from the January 30, 2001 study prepared by Exponent and contained in Appendix C of this document. Because the basis for flood analysis is the project's designation by FEMA LOMR and revised FIRM, the following discussion has been provided.
Exponent has investigated past studies and prepared a detailed FIS focused on the Parkside Estates property in order to determine an appropriate BFE for a CLOMR. The Exponent transmittal documents for the proposed CLOMR are contained in Appendix C and are dated January 30,2001.
FEMA requires a detailed Flood Insurance Study because the revised FIRM and LOMR issued by FEMA in June 2000, based on an approximate study, shows the flood hazard at the Shea Homes property as an unnumbered A-Zone without a BFE. Where FEMA has not provided detailed FIS, FEMA regulations state that the floodplain administrator must require a project proponent to prepare a detailed analysis.
The study's purpose was to evaluate the appropriate 100-year (1% annual chance) flood depth for the underlying floodplain in order to achieve adequate flood protection. Both riverine and combined riverine and coastal storm surge events were modeled.
This focused detailed Flood Insurance Study concludes that the 100-year (1% annual chance) water surface elevation (i.e., BFE) over the Shea Homes property is 1.76 ft (NGVD 29 5) for riverine flooding, and 1.88 ft (NGVD 29) for combined riverine and coastal storm surge flooding. These elevations correspond to a rounded BFE of 2 ft (NGVD 29). This BFE when converted to 1988 datum is 4.44 or a rounded figure of 4.5. This BFE is substantially less than the base flood elevations of 10.2 feet to 10.9 feet (NAVD 88) interpolated by the County from the WEST study used for FEMA's LOMR issued June 2000 FIRM (refer to Exhibit 48 ). The reasons for this substantial difference are primarily because the focused detailed study prepared by Exponent uses 1) new detailed and accurate contour mapping, 2) a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CoE) levee breach analysis, 3) hydrology consistent with FEMA and CoE published discharges, 4) an unsteady flow model which accounts for flood storage and unsteady tidal control, and 5) proposed improvements with the Parkside Estates development. Please refer to Appendix C for a detailed discussion of the factors listed above.
5 All elevations in the focused detailed Flood Insurance Study prepared by Exponent for Shea Homes are based on mean sea level, (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29)). The Shea Homes development elevations, in separate documents, are based on mean sea level, (North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)). NGVD 29 elevations may be converted to NAVD 88 elevations by adding 2.44 feet to NGVD 29 elevations.
The increase in flood water surface elevation to adjacent properties caused by the proposed development under this alternative is zero (0) ft for riverine flooding, and 0.12 ft for combined riverine and coastal storm surge flooding. The zero to negligible increase in water surface elevation from the project alternative is because drainage improvements (shown in Exhibit 58 ) to be made as conditions of development more than make up for displacement by fill of storage volume on the project site and closure of the connection to Bolsa Chica lowlands draining the property to the west. The proposed storm drain improvements include additional gravity drainage from the property to the Slater Pump Station and additional pumping capacity at the station. These storm drain improvements are shown on Exhibit 58 . Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 in the Draft EIR would apply to this alternative.
Impacts related to flooding under this alternative could potentially be
greater than under the condition analyzed in the Draft EIR in the absence
of the increased pad elevations. However, the proposed design of this alternative,
including the higher pad elevations, storm drain improvements, addition of
greater pumping capacity to the Slater Pump Station, and improvements to
the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, will mitigate the
impacts to a level of less than significant.
This alternative would result in fewer impacts related to biological resources
than the original project. Mitigation Measure 1, which ensures that no construction
impacts affect the potential active nesting sites for native birds of prey
would still apply. As described in the Draft EIR, the original project would
result in the removal of an EPA delineated pocket wetland and a 0.2 acre
pickleweed patch located on the County portion of the project site. Implementation
of the proposed alternative would not result in removal of the EPA delineated
wetland nor the 0.2-acre pickleweed patch; therefore, the portion of Mitigation
Measure 2 under Biological Resources that is designed to mitigate for the
loss of wetland would not be required. However, the latter portion of Mitigation
Measure 2 still applies to the Reduced Density Alternative with Projected
Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR), which requires
"the preservation and enhancement of 2 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat
per the Department of Fish and Game." This Reduced Density Alternative with
Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with LOMR) provides 5 acres
of open space in the County parcel. An on-site preservation and enhancement
plan for 2 acres will be implemented under this alternative per Mitigation
Measure 2 of the EIR. Overall, this alternative results in less impacts to
biological resources.
This alternative would result in potential impacts to archaeological resources,
similar to those of the original project. Subsequent to the release of the
Draft EIR and in response to comments, Mr. Brian Dillon, consulting archeologist
conducted an additional survey of the project site. A copy of this report,
dated, February 14, 2000, is contained in Appendix D of this document. The
Tentative Tract Maps contained in the Draft EIR were revised to ensure no
remedial grading impacts would occur to ORA 83 as a result of project implementation.
Please refer to Section 3.0 of this document. The result of the study, prepared
by Brian Dillon, states that the revision of the TTM's and redesign of the
site result in mitigation of potential adverse impacts to the CA-ORA-83/86
archaeological site by avoidance of the site. The previous Tentative Tract
Map in the Draft EIR included a potential overlap of roads, lots, etc. onto
the easternmost fringe of archaeological site CA-ORA-83/86. The revised 161
unit TTM for this alternative includes relocation of roads, lots, etc. away
from the archaeological site in an easterly direction, resulting in complete
avoidance of the archaeological site. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 identified
in the Draft EIR Cultural Resources would apply to this alternative.
This alternative would result in impacts to public services and utilities
that would be less than the original project. Because this alternative would
result in the development of 4^ 45 fewer units, the demands on existing public
services and utilities (i.e., schools, sewer and water, fire protection,
police protection, library, gas, electricity, hospitals, transit, etc.) would
be less. Although the impacts would be less with this alternative. Mitigation
Measures 1 through 18 under Public Services and Utilities identified in the
Draft EIR would still apply to ensure impacts are reduced to a level less
than significant.
This alternative is technically feasible. It meets the project applicant's objectives. This alternative reduces impacts of the original project in that it completely avoids the eucalyptus trees, the EPA delineated pocket wetland, and the pickleweed patch located on the County portion of the site, and provides a 767.3-foot buffer from the closest residential use to the 0.13 acre on-site ESHA. Furthermore, it provides 7.7 additional acres of open space. This alternative slightly increases the overall site base flood elevation, compared to the original project. This results in an insignificant difference in the amount of import and the duration of grading operation. Impacts related to flooding under this alternative could potentially be greater than under the condition analyzed in the Draft EIR in the absence of the increased pad elevations. However, the proposed design of this alternative, including the higher pad elevations, storm drain improvements, addition of greater pumping capacity to the Slater Pump Station, and improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, will mitigate the impacts to a level of less than significant.
Thus, it reduces many impacts compared to the original project and does not create significant impacts related to the increase in base flood elevation. Therefore, it is environmentally superior to the original project and remains under consideration if approval of Shea Home's CLOMR application to FEMA is granted.
