LOCATION: 17301 Graham St. (West side of Graham Street, south of Kenilworth Drive, adjacent to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel)

STATEMENT OF ISSUE:

• Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (EIR No. 97-2):

- Analyzes proposed development on an approximate 49 acre vacant site for the purpose of constructing up to 208 homes, associated infrastructure and private and public open space.

- Documents potential impacts to land use compatibility, aesthetics/light glare, transportation/ circulation, air quality, noise, earth resources, drainage/hydrology, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities.

- Evaluates nine alternatives to the originally-proposed 208 unit project.

- Concludes that Alternatives 1, 7 and 9 are the environmentally superior alternatives.

- Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels for the original project and all of the alternatives.

• Staffs Recommendation:

- Certify EIR No. 97-2 because it adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies.

RECOMMENDATION:

Motion to:

"Certify Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1574 (Attachment No. 1)."

ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):

The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as:

A. "Deny certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 and direct staff accordingly." B. "Continue certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 and direct staff accordingly."

A. Land Use Element

Goal LU 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services.

Mitigation Measures #1, Drainage/Hydrology; #1-18, Public Services and Utilities; and #2 and 4, Transportation/Circulation require construction of improvements including a traffic signal, storm drainage improvements and flood control protection to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure.

Policy LU 2.1.7: Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities.

Mitigation Measures #4 and 5, Public Services and Utilities, require that the developer pay required school fees and comply with a Mitigation Agreement with the affected school districts.

Policy LU 4.1.2: Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review.

Mitigation Measures #1 and 2, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, require compliance with all applicable City plans, policies, and ordinances with respect to landscaping, including submittal of a landscape plan for the Graham Street frontage.

Policy LU 5.1.1: Require that development protect environmental resources by consideration of the policies and standards contained in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and Federal (NEPA) and State (CEQA) regulations. During the development review process: a) Review any development proposal for the Bolsa Chica area to ensure that no development is permitted in Federally delineated wetlands; and b) Review any development proposed for non-wetland areas to ensure that appropriate setbacks and buffers are maintained between development and environmentally sensitive areas to protect habitat quality.

The project EIR documents the former existence of 0.2 acres of remnant coastal salt marsh-type vegetation (patchy pickleweed), 0.4 acres of EPA delineated pocket wetlands and approx. 0.36 acres of potential jurisdictional wetlands on the parcel that is proposed for annexation. The patchy pickleweed and potential jurisdictional wetlands partially overlap. The EIR recommends that elimination of sensitive biological resources under the original project be mitigated by requiring replacement at a ratio of 4:1 within the Bolsa Chica lowlands or an alternative mitigation site, per the recommendation of the State Department of Fish and Game. With Alternatives 6-9, the patchy pickleweed and EPA delineated pocket wetlands are not removed and no potential wetland is disturbed. Alternatives 6-9 increase the buffer from the EPA designated ESHA from 60 to 464 ft.

Policy LU 9.1.2: Require that single-family residential units be designed to convey a high level of quality and character...

Mitigation Measure #1, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, requires compliance with City comments/ conditions pertaining to design and layout of buildings and landscaping for the purpose of achieving a high quality design.

Staff Report-9/10/02 3 (02sr32)

B. Historic and Cultural Resources Element

Objective HCR 1.1: Ensure that all the City's historically and archaeologically significant resources are identified and protected.

The EIR documents all known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project and reports that the project has been designed to avoid sensitive resources, i.e. CA-ORA-83. Mitigation Measures #1-3, Cultural Resources, require completion of additional cultural resource testing for degraded sites CA-ORA-1308 and 1309, which are characterized as low significance sites - specifically subsurface testing and, if necessary, consultation with appropriate groups and a cultural resource management plan.

C. Circulation Element

Policy CE 2.3.1: Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible.

Policy CE 2.3.4: Require that new development mitigate its impact on City streets, including but not limited to, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts, to maintain adequate levels of service.

The EIR included a detailed traffic analysis to document potential impacts associated with the project. The EIR traffic studies demonstrate that with and without the project, the level of service on Graham Street will be level A, the best rating. Mitigation Measures #1-5, Transportation/Circulation, require the developer to complete various traffic improvements including restriping and installation of a traffic signal as well as payment of traffic impact fees to ensure that potential impacts are mitigated.

D. Utilities Element

Objective U 1.2: Ensure that existing and new development does not degrade the City's surface waters and groundwater basins.

The EIR Technical Appendices include a Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan that accounts for new 2001 permitting requirements. The EIR includes Mitigation Measures #2 and 3, Drainage/Hydrology, and #4, Earth Resources, to address water quality issues that may arise from dewatering, the requirement for a Water Quality Management Plan and compliance with NPDES requirements.

Objective U 3.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to protect life and property from flood hazards.

The developer submitted a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding potential flooding for the site and surrounding area. FEMA approved the CLOMR on June 6, 2002. The CLOMR is based on certain storm drain and flood control improvements being completed. Supporting documentation for the CLOMR and a discussion of potential impacts is included in the EIR. Mitigation Measure #1, Drainage/Hydrology, requires that the improvements be completed.

Staff Report - 9/10/02 4 (02sr32)

E. Environmental Resources/Conservation Element

Goal ERC 2: Protect and preserve significant habitats of plant and wildlife species, including wetlands for their intrinsic values.

The EIR documents the presence of significant habitats. Mitigation Measure #2, Biological Resources, requires that the 0.2 acres of patchy pickleweed and the 0.2 acres of EPA delineated pocket wetlands (half of the total EPA wetlands) that was to be removed on the County parcel under the original project be replaced by the developer off-site at a 4:1 ratio, per the recommendation of the State Department of Fish and Game. However, with Alternatives 6-9, the patchy pickleweed and EPA delineated pocket wetlands are not removed, and the mitigation is not necessary; in addition, the 0.36 acres of potential jurisdictional wetlands on the County parcel are not disturbed.

Policy ERC 2.1.10: Conduct construction activities to minimize adverse impacts on existing wildlife resources.

Mitigation Measure #1, Biological Resources, requires that if construction takes place during normal breeding season for area raptors, a survey shall be conducted for active nests. If found, construction would be required to maintain a distance of 500 feet from the nests.

F. Environmental Hazards Element

Objective EH 1.1: Ensure that land use planning in the City accounts for seismic and geologic risk, including ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence, soil and slope stability, and water table levels.

Objective EH 6.2: Minimize peat hazards through the regulation of construction.

Mitigation Measures #1 and 2, Earth Resources, fulfill these objectives of the General Plan by requiring that the recommendations of the project geotechnical study be completed.

G. Housing Element

Policy H 3.1.1: Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the community, with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities.

Mitigation Measure #1, Land Use Compatibility, addresses compliance with the City's affordable housing requirements.

H. Coastal Element

Policy C 1.2.3: Prior to the issuance of a development entitlement, the City shall make the finding that adequate services (i.e., water, sewer, roads, etc.) can be provided to serve the proposed development, consistent with policies contained in the Coastal Element, at the time of occupancy.

Mitigation Measures #1, Drainage/Hydrology; #1-18, Public Services and Utilities; and #2 and 4, Transportation/Circulation require construction of improvements including a traffic signal, storm drainage improvements, flood control protection and a new sewer lift station and force main to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure.

Staff Report - 9/10/02 5 (02sr32)

Policy C 5.1.2: Where new development would adversely impact archeological or paleontological resources within the Coastal Zone, reasonable mitigation measures to minimize impacts shall be required.

Policy C 6.1.1: Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at a minimum, prevent the degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water.

Policy C 7.1.2: Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas.

Policy C 7.1.4: Require that new development contiguous to wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas include buffer zones. Buffer zones shall be a minimum of one hundred feet setback from the landward edge of the wetland...

The EIR documents the presence of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) as designated by the State Department of Fish and Game. Alternative 7, the applicant's request, proposes a minimum distance, or buffer, of 464 feet from the nearest ESHA. A wetlands delineation prepared for the applicant for the unincorporated area in 2002 and included in the Final EIR concluded that there was a potential wetland area that overlapped the already documented patchy pickleweed. In the companion staff report regarding actual development of the site, staff recommends deletion of Lot No. 4 in the unincorporated area to achieve a minimum 100 ft. buffer from this potential wetland.

Policy C 7.1.5: Notify County, State and Federal agencies having regulatory authority in wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitats when development projects in and adjacent to such areas are submitted to the City.

Staff Report - 9/10/02 6 (02sr32)

As part of the EIR preparation, review and public participation processes, the City contacted the following agencies with respect to the potential existence of wetlands and ESHAs on the project site:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Department of Fish and Game and California Coastal Commission. Documentation and analysis regarding the presence or absence of these features on the project site is provided in the EIR.

Objective C9.1: Provide and maintain water, sewer and drainage systems that adequately serve planned land uses at a maximized cost efficiency.

Mitigation Measures #1, Drainage/Hydrology and #1-18, Public Services and Utilities require construction of improvements including storm drainage improvements, flood control protection and new sewer lift station and force main to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure.

Zoning Compliance: Not applicable.

Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: Not applicable.

Environmental Status:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 was prepared by EDAW Inc., a consultant hired by the City to analyze the potential impacts to the project. The EIR must be certified by the Planning Commission prior to any action on Annexation No. 98-1, General Plan Amendment no. 98-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 94-6 and associated entitlements.

The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. The EIR covers the proposed land use designation amendments and annexation, as well as, proposed development of the site. EIR No. 97-2 discusses potential adverse impacts in the areas of land use compatibility, aesthetics/light and glare, transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, earth resources, drainage/hydrology, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives.

Environmental Procedures

The procedure that was followed during the preparation of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 97-2 is outlined below:

DATE

ACTIVITY

September 15, 1997

Staff conducted an initial study and determined that an EIR was necessary.

September 15-17, 1997

A Notice of Preparation was sent to responsible agencies and filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify public of intent to prepare an EIR. A 30-day public review period was established. A notice of availability was sent to area property owners and interested parties.

February 18, 1998

Staff, EDAW and applicant meet with State Dept. of Fish & Game (DFG) regarding wetland delineation for the property.

Staff Report - 9/10/02 7 (02sr32)

DATE

ACTIVITY

October 9, 1997

A Scoping Meeting was held to take comments on the Initial Study and NOP.

March 16, 1998

City received letter from DFG determining that site "does not meet wetland criteria."

April 17, 1998

Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. Draft EIR available for public review and comment for 45-day public review period.

April 20, 1998

At City Council public hearing on City's Annual Weed Abatement Program public testimony was offered regarding the potential existence of wetlands on the Shea property. A DFG staff person indicated that they may reconsider their position on the wetland issue.

April 28, 1998

Meeting between City staff, DFG, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, California Coastal Commission staff, EDAW, Shea Homes, Mayor Dettloff, and Bolsa Chica Land Trust representative. DFG indicated any change in their previous position would be submitted in writing.

May 4, 1998

Staff presented a status report on the project to the City Council. Bolsa Chica Land Trust requests an extension of the EIR public review period.

May 14, 1998

Staff and EDAW held a public information meeting on the project.

May 15, 1998

City Council determined that EIR public review period should be extended from 45- to 60-days. Notice of extended review period mailed.

June 15, 1998

EIR public review period ended. DFG comment letter received recommending that mitigation for loss of degraded pickleweed habitat on the County piece be expanded from 0.8 to 2.0 acres; no change in wetland status indicated.

June 1998

City requests applicant to prepare a reduced density alternative for consideration in response to comments received on the Draft EIR. City and applicant begin meetings with County regarding a new watershed analysis under preparation for the County. City and EDAW begin preparation of response to comments, including preparation of addendum technical reports.

June 14, 2000

FEMA issued a revised Flood Map for City, including applicant's property. City and applicant determine additional alternatives needed due to new Flood Map.

June 29,2001

New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document filed with State Clearinghouse and responsible agencies. Notice sent to area property owners. 45-day public comment period begins.

July 25, 2001

Public information meeting on the New Alternatives document held.

August 12, 2001

Public comment period on New Alternatives document ends.

August 13, 2001

City and EDAW begin completion of response to comments, including preparation of addendum technical reports.

August 2, 2002

Response to Comments on Draft EIR and New Alternatives document. Final EIR, Additional Technical Appendices and Comments made available for public information and sent to Responsible Agencies. (CEQA requires Response to Comments be sent to Responsible Agencies 10 days prior to certification hearing.)

August 27, 2002

Study Session for the Planning Commission on the EIR

September 10,2002

Public hearing before Planning Commission to Certify EIR

No. 97-2.

Staff Report-9/10/02 (02sr32)

Summary of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2

In the preparation of an environmental impact report, potential impacts associated with the proposed project (annexation, land use and zoning amendments, development-tentative tract maps, conditional use permit, etc.) are identified and analyzed pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. EIR No. 97-2 determined that all of the potential adverse impacts can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. A Project Impact Summary in the Final EIR (pages 2-3 through 2-19) describes the impact categories, descriptions of impacts, mitigation measures and levels of significance, and staff recommends these be incorporated into the project. The EIR also contains information mandated by CEQA on Alternatives to the Project (pages 6-1 through 6-108). Written responses prepared by City staff in conjunction with EDAW to all of the comments received at the two public information meetings and during the 60-day public review period on the Draft EIR and the 45-day public review period on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document have been completed and made available for public review. The Final EIR, which integrates the Draft EIR and New Alternatives documents, incorporates changes (errata) in response to comments or for clarification/update.

Environmental Board'.

The City's Environmental Board reviewed the DEIR and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR and provided two comment letters (letter #63,1998 and letter #6, 2001) during the public review periods. The letters have been responded to in the Response to Comments. In summary, the Board commented on the following: impacts to Bolsa Chica lowland restoration, one traffic egress/ingress point, potential loss of wetlands on unincorporated parcel, use of fill from mesa and associated impacts to mesa, potential impacts to archaeological resources, potential privacy impacts, clarification about flooding impacts with only one side of the channel proposed for improvement, and a preference for Alternative 9.

Coastal Status:

The proposed project is within the Coastal Zone. The portion of the site within the City is an area of deferred certification and governed by the Coastal Act. The applicant has filed a request for a Local Coastal Program Amendment that would certify the site as a part of the adopted Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program. After the City approves the Local Coastal Program Amendment it is subject to the approval of the California Coastal Commission. The portion of the site within unincorporated Orange County would have been covered by the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program had it ultimately been approved. However, pending resolution of a law suit the standard of review for any development occurring within the area of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program is the Coastal Act.

Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board'. Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns:

The EIR was circulated to other Departments for review and comment. All Department comments and recommendations are incorporated into the EIR and its mitigation measures. No conditions of approval apply to the EIR. As development of the proposed project occurs, compliance with mitigation measures

Staff Report - 9/10/02 9 (02sr32)

will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is attached to the staff report for development of the site.

Public Notification:

For the August 27, 2002 Study Session notices were sent to property owners of record within a 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property, applicant, interested parties and individuals/organizations that commented on the environmental documents. For the September 10,2002 public hearing, legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on August 29, 2002, and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), applicant, interested parties and individuals/organizations that commented on the environmental documents. As of September 5,2002, three communications supporting or opposing the request to certify the EIR have been received (Attachment No. 4).

Application Processing Dates:

DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATES:

EA Application Submitted: October 8, 1996 September 27, 2002 (Within one year of complete Draft EIR: April 17,1998 application with up to 90 day reasonable extension

New Alternatives to the Draft: June 29, 2001 ^allowed)

ANALYSIS:

The analysis section provides an overview of the EIR and its conclusions, a review of the project alternatives and a summary of the response to comments.

EIR Overview

The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed project. The issues discussed in the EIR are those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The EIR discusses potential adverse impacts in 10 issue areas. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives.

Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, all potentially adverse impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, and there are no unavoidable significant impacts. The Findings of Fact, as required by CEQA, review each of the impact areas and list the recommended mitigation measures (see companion report for Tentative Tract Map). A summary of key issues and mitigation measures as a result of the environmental impact report process is provided below.

• Land Use Compatibility

The EIR indicates that potential impacts related to land use compatibility are limited to the provision of affordable housing. The recommended mitigation measure is to have the developer comply with

Staff Report-9/10/02 10 (02sr32)

the City's affordable housing requirements, which require submittal of an affordable housing plan prior to recordation of a final map.

• Aesthetics/Light and Glare

Potential impacts associated with aesthetics/light and glare arise from the development of a site currently used for agricultural purposes and the introduction of new lighting sources into the area. The EIR includes seven mitigation measures regarding these issues. The mitigation measures address landscaping and site design, bikeway planning, lighting plans and the use of non-reflective materials. In addition. Alternatives 6-9 require elevation of the building pads for floodproofing purposes. However, this does not warrant additional mitigation measures due to the revised site design that increases the separation between the existing Kenilworth homes and the proposed homes by 108 to 119 ft. including a 50 ft. wide paseo park, increases the amount of open space and decreases the number of units. These alternatives also do not require the removal of any of the Eucalyptus trees that were proposed for removal on the unincorporated parcel with the original project making the tree replacement mitigation (measure #3) unnecessary. As part of the Response to Comments, the EIR also contains a headlight study, visual privacy study and visual simulations that conclude no significant impacts associated with the project.

• Transportation/Circulation

Potential impacts to transportation/circulation stem from the trips associated with construction and occupancy of the project. There are five mitigation measures which address these impacts. Specific improvements required include: 1) constructing a traffic signal at Graham and "A" Streets, 2) restriping Graham Street from Glenstone to Warner, 3) payment of traffic impact fees and 4) submittal and approval of a haul route plan to Public Works. The traffic study concludes that an acceptable level of service (A or B) will exist on surrounding streets. In addition, there will be adequate ingress/egress for Kenilworth Street residents due to the restriping of Graham; the relocated project entry also allows for sufficient stacking (approximately nine cars) between the signal and Kenilworth Street.

In response to questions raised at the Study Session, the original traffic study for the project was completed in 1996, with traffic counts done in October. The baseline, or existing, condition examined traffic conditions (counts) at that time. Thus, impacts associated with nearby Marine View School traffic were included as school was in session (1996 enrollment of 715). The baseline analysis also included traffic associated with the Meadowlark Commercial Development as that project was constructed in 1994 (Ralph's Grocery opened in October 1994). The traffic study then analyzed the existing 1996 condition plus the project and analyzed short-term cumulative impacts [existing condition plus project plus Meadowlark residential (Summerlane) and Holly Seacliff. In terms of analyzing the short-term cumulative situation, the traffic study is conservative: it assumed 350 Summerlane units when only 313 were ultimately approved/constructed, and it assumed 2,580 units in Holly Seacliff when less than 2,350 are anticipated in the Holly Seacliff area including Ellis-Goldenwest. In terms of the 2020 traffic projection, based on direction from the City, the traffic study used Bolsa Chica Project Traffic Impact Analysis completed in 1994, which assumed a substantially larger Bolsa Chica development than is currently being considered. Staff believes the traffic study adequately analyzes potential impacts associated with the project as well as the cumulative impacts associated with area development. Even though there has been an increase in Marine View

Staff Report-9/10/02 11 (02sr32)

enrollment (2002 enrollment of 793, 11% increase, as well as the higher enrollment of 823 in 1999), this is more than offset by the conservative estimates assumed for surrounding development.

• Air Quality

Short-term construction activities and long-term changes in traffic generation can result in air quality impacts. There are eight recommended mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts from construction to a less than significant level and minimize long-term impacts including synchronization of traffic lights and use of energy saving features in the homes as well as construction measures to reduce short-term impacts.

• Noise

Potential noise impacts relate to short-term construction activities and long-term changes in ambient conditions related to the public park. Two mitigation measures address construction related noise requiring noise reduction for construction equipment and a noise mitigation plan. The last mitigation measure requires that if new wall are constructed between existing homes and the proposed homes or along Graham that they maximize noise attenuation. As discussed in the Tentative Tract staff report, staff is not recommending a new wall be constructed along the north property line; however, a new wall along Graham would be built and would be required to comply with this mitigation measure.

• Earth Resources

The project site is an area characterized by loose, compressible soils, with varying degrees of corrosivity, in the upper layers and peat within five feet below ground surface (bgs). Due to the nature of the soils there is the potential for liquefaction. In addition, ground water (perched water, not the water table) was encountered at six feet bgs. Given the site's history of agricultural production since the 1950s, the EIR also indicates the possibility of pesticide residue in the soil. The EIR identifies six mitigation measures specific to grading and construction of the project because of these factors. The mitigation measures are designed to minimize or avoid impacts related to compressible materials, ground subsidence, dewatering, corrosive soils, pesticides and seismic activity. The mitigation measures would require overexcavation of loose/soft, compressible soils to depths varying from five to 19 feet, use of surface pumps and monitoring of boundary conditions during dewatering. The project would also be required to comply with Uniform Building Code requirements and complete a Phase II assessment.

• Drainage/Hydrology

Existing drainage systems in the vicinity of the project are inadequate and the area experiences flooding. Impacts associated with the project include increased runoff, i.e. drainage, potential impacts to new homes due to flooding and water quality impacts associated with the runoff. The EIR identifies three mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The project will be required to complete the following improvements: 1) construct three new storm drain lines (60 inch, 102 inch and 120 inch); and 2) complete Channel improvements, e.g., sheetpile, along the site's developed edge. (It should be noted that the existing 60" line along the northerly property line will be used to drain the paseo park area or a local drain will be installed for the paseo park.) In addition, the project will be required to comply with the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency with regard to floodproofing the homes. The CLOMR

Staff Report-9/10/02 12 (02sr32)

requires a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 4.6 ft. which is comparable with the BFE of 4.5 ft. analyzed in Alternatives 7 and 9. Finally, with regards to water quality, the project will be required to complete a Water Quality Management Plan and comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.

In response to questions raised at the Study Session regarding water quality, the EIR Technical Appendices include an Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis prepared in 1998 as well as an Addendum prepared in February 2002 to address the new permitting requirements adopted in 2001 by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The EIR documents that the project will treat the "first flush" event consistent with regulatory requirements. The "first flush" treated would include runoff from the project as well as an existing 21.8 acre developed area to the northwest. Based on the analysis, it is predicted that pollutant loads to Slater Channel after development would be less than existing levels by approximately 45 percent. Thus, the treatment improvements proposed by the project will result in an improved water quality condition. Staff believes that the EIR adequately analyzes potential impacts associated with drainage/hydrology.

• Biological Resources

The Draft EIR concluded that the original project could result in potential impacts to biological resources due to proximity of raptor nesting sites to areas of construction and the loss of 0.2 acres of patchy pickleweed and 0.2 acres of EPA delineated pocket wetlands on the unincorporated parcel. Two mitigation measures were recommended. The measures are designed to lessen impacts by limiting the location of construction during nesting season and by requiring replacement of the sensitive biological resources with preservation and enhancement of two acres of appropriate habitat per the State Department of Fish and Game. However, Alternatives 6-9 avoid these biological resources due to fewer units on the unincorporated parcel, making the replacement mitigation unnecessary if one of those alternatives were approved. In addition, no eucalyptus trees would be removed in this area with these alternatives. The Final EIR Technical Appendices also include an updated wetland delineation for the unincorporated parcel in response to comments from the Coastal Commission. The study concludes that there are 0.36 acres of potential jurisdictional wetlands on this parcel that partly overlap the pickleweed area. No additional mitigation measures are required because the applicant's revised request (Alternative 7) does not propose construction/disturbance to this area.

• Cultural Resources

Potential impacts to cultural resources were analyzed given the location of all or a part of three archaeological sites on the project site. Two of the sites (CA-ORA-1308 and 1309) were considered of very low significance and very degraded; the third site (CA-ORA-83) is located on a portion of the site proposed to remain as open space. In response to comments on the Draft EIR, the original project was reduced by two units upon additional site investigation and cross-checking of the tentative maps with CA-ORA-83. Thus, the Final EIR reflects a total unit count of 206 for the "original" project instead of 208. The EIR recommends three mitigation measures for the two degraded sites that 1) require a subsurface investigation, 2) if necessary, based on the results of the subsurface investigation, a cultural services management plan, and 3) retention of an archeologist for a pre-grading conference and monitoring.

Staff Report - 9/10/02 13 (02sr32)

• Public Services and Utilities

Impacts to Public Services and Utilities may result in several areas: in 1998 the project was expected to be beyond the Fire Dept.'s five minute response time goal due to the relocation of Station #8; there will be an increased number of calls to the Police Dept; there will be increased demand on school facilities; and additional utility services (water, sewer, electricity, etc.) will be required. There are 18 recommended mitigation measures to ensure that no significant impacts result to public services and utilities. The measures speak to conservation of resources, payment of school fees, compliance with Fire Dept. requirements in addition to provision of fire sprinklers throughout the project, consultation with the Police Dept. and construction of a new sewer lift station and force main. In response to Study Session questions regarding Fire Dept. response times, the Dept. has provided a memorandum (Attachment No. 5) and has explained that with the construction of Station #6, the area will not be deficient; accordingly, staff has prepared three errata pages for the Final EIR (Attachment No. 6).

Alternatives

A range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project was identified in Section 6.0 of the Draft EIR pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. With the circulation of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document in 2001, four new alternatives were added. The discussion of alternatives focuses on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental impacts, or reducing the impacts to a level of insignificance even if the alternatives would hinder the attainment of project objectives or would be more costly. Thus, not all of the alternatives are carried forward for analysis. The analysis concludes that Alternative 7, the currently requested project, and Alternative 9 are environmentally superior alternatives. A table summary of key issues for the original project and the alternatives that were carried forward in the EIR is presented below. A discussion of all the alternatives follows.

Alternatives Under Consideration in the EIR

Issue

Original Project 208 units

Alt. 1 No project/ No development

Alt. 5 Alternate Roadway Alignment B

Alt. 7 171 Units w/BFEof4.5ft. (Applicant's Request)

Alt. 9 161 Units w/BFEof4.5ft.

Provides new residential opportunities

Improves infrastructure for existing as well as new development

Avoids all sensitive biological resources

Compatible with adjacent development and property

Impacts mitigated to level of .insignificance

Environmentally Superior

Note: Although Alternatives 6 and 8 (with BFE of 10.9 ft.) were carried forward for consideration in the EIR; they are not necessary due to the CLOMR approved by FEMA on June 6, 2002 that established a BFE of 4.6 ft.

Staff Report-9/10/02 14 (02sr32)

Alternative 1 - No Project/No Development

According to the analysis presented in the EIR, the No project/No development alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, according to CEQA guidelines, if the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

The No project/No development alternative would not meet the basic project objectives outlined in Section 3.0 (Project Description) of the EIR. This alternative would not meet the development objectives of the applicant, nor would it accomplish City objectives for new residential development and providing infrastructure improvements to accommodate demands of existing development as well as new development.

Alternative 2 - Development Under Existing Zoning

This alternative was presented in the Draft EIR in the context of the original project. It assumed maximum buildout of the site per the zoning code which would allow a total of 367 units. This alternative was not carried forward for additional analysis because it would result in greater impacts than the original 208 units and did not meet the project objectives.

Alternative 3- Alternative Location

This alternative was eliminated from further consideration in the Draft EIR due to the fact that there were no other sites in the City with similar characteristics to the project site including size, landform and amenity opportunities. Although the Holly Seacliff area was evaluated at the time, there were no undeveloped or unentitled properties in that area that could accommodate the proposed project.

Alternative 4 - Alternative Park Site Location

This alternative was suggested during the scoping meeting for the project and assumes that the neighborhood park would be located adjacent to Graham Street. This alternative was not carried forward for several reasons: this alternative separates the park from the passive open space at the northwest comer of the site which is already designated for Open Space-Park in the General Plan and results in a less effective open space amenity; it places neighborhood park activity next to Graham, an arterial, which has safety implications and changes the nature of the park; and it would result in greater impacts to cultural resources as homes would be constructed where the original project proposed the park.

Alternative 5 - Alternative Roadway Connections

This alternative was also suggested during the scoping meeting. The alternative involves constructing a roadway connection from the project site to Bolsa Chica Street for the purpose of providing a second vehicular outlet. Three roadway alignments were considered. Roadway alignments A and C were eliminated from consideration because they were not technically feasible due to potentially unsafe traffic conditions at Bolsa Chica Street; they also did not reduce impacts of the original project and created new impacts. Roadway alignment B is technically feasible and therefore carried forward for consideration. However, it would cut through privately owned property, not controlled by the applicant, and would essentially eliminate the property's development potential. It would also require substantial cuts, could result in sight distance constraints and does not reduce impacts of the proposed project.

Staff Report-9/10/02 15 (02sr32)

Alternatives 6-9 - Reduced Density Alternatives with Specified Based Flood Elevations (BFEs)

These alternatives were developed in response to comments on the Draft EIR to reduce potential impacts of the project in the unincorporated area of the site and in response to the issuance of a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by FEMA in June 2000. The alternatives were circulated for public review and comment in 2001 in the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. Alternatives 6 and 8 reflect the City's interpretation of the 2000 FIRM and require a BFE of 10.9 ft. Alternatives 7 and 9 reflect the results of a detailed watershed analysis submitted by the applicant to FEMA and require a BFE of 4.5 ft. In terms of the reduced density component. Alternatives 6 and 7 reduce the number of units in the unincorporated area from 27 to nine; Alternatives 8 and 9 reduce the number of units from 27 to 0. On June 6,2002 FEMA approved the applicant's Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) request and established a BFE of 4.6 ft. for the site. Thus, Alternatives 6 and 8 are no longer necessary. Alternatives 7 and 9 with a very similar BFE of 4.5 ft. are still viable.

Alternative 7 (the applicant's request) and Alternative 9 are environmentally superior to the original project. They eliminate impacts to biological resources, improve aesthetics by adding a 50 foot wide paseo park between the existing homes along Kenilworth and the proposed homes, increase the amount of open space by at least six acres, increase the separation between the Kenilworth homes and the new homes by 108 to 119 feet, result in a minimum 18 percent reduction in average daily trips and do not create any new significant impacts. It should be noted, however, that Alternative 7 meets the objectives of the City and the applicant more so than Alternative 9.

Public Comments on the Draft EIR

The City of Huntington Beach received a substantial number of comments on the Draft EIR and also received a number of comments on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. In total, 110 separate individuals, agencies and organizations submitted verbal or written comments on the project. The comments focused on numerous issues, including: biological resources, traffic, flooding, impacts to Bolsa Chica, cultural resources, construction impacts and water quality. The original project was modified in response to comments, including the new alternatives that were developed, and staff has responded to all comments received in the Response to Comments. The Final EIR includes revised text sections as a result of the comments. Key modifications to the project in response to comments include:

• Biological Resources. In response to comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Department of Fish and Game (DFG), California Coastal Commission and Bolsa Chica Land Trust:

- Reduced Density Alternative Concept Plan developed; unincorporated development reduced from 27 units to nine units to avoid any removal of eucalyptus trees or patchy pickleweed.

- Revised a mitigation measure requiring mitigation for loss of patchy pickleweed and EPA delineated pocket wetlands in association with the original project per DFG recommendation.

• Transportation/Circulation. In response to comments:

- Project entry relocated approximately 150 ft. north and project entry redesigned to increase amount of queuing on site.

- Traffic study revised to include cumulative impacts associated with the Summerlane project.

Staff Report - 9/10/02 16 (02sr32)

• Drainage/Hydrology. In response to comments from the County of Orange and in response to a new FIRM issued by FEMA in June 2000:

- Alternatives 6-9 created and circulated for public comment.

- Applicant prepared a new flood insurance study, subsequently approved by FEMA, which

establishes BFE for the site and surrounding area that results in substantial reduction in floodplain.

• Cultural Resources. In response to comments regarding CA-ORA-83:

- Project archaeologist resurveyed site and concluded that two lots should be removed to ensure no disturbance to resource. Original project reduced from 208 to 206 units.

• Aesthetics/Light and Glare. In response to comments regarding potential impacts from new development:

- Visual simulations. Privacy Study (views from new homes to existing Kenilworth homes), and Headlight Study (impacts from headlights given elevated pad sites) were prepared and included in the response to comments. No significant impacts result.

SUMMARY:

Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 serves as an informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Parkside Estates project, alternatives which minimize those impacts and appropriate mitigation measures.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify EIR No. 97-2 because:

• The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and

• Identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies.

ATTACHMENTS;

1. Resolution No. 1574 (Final EIR No. 97-2)

2. Final EIR No. 97-2, includes 10 replacement/missing pages distributed August 30, 2002 and Response to Comments (under separate cover - not attached)

3. Technical Appendices for Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (under separate cover - not attached)

4. Letters in Opposition and/or Support

5. Memorandum from Fire Department, dated September 4, 2002

6. Errata pages to Final EIR

SH:MBB:rl

Staff Report-9/10/02 17 (02sr32)

RESOLUTION NO. 1574

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NUMBER 97-2 FOR THE PARKSIDE ESTATES PROJECT

WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Number 97-2 was prepared to address die environmental implications of die proposed Parkside Estates Project.

• On September 17, 1997, a Notice of Preparation for die draft EIR was sent to die State Clearinghouse in die Office of Planning and Research and to other responsible agencies.

• On April 17, 1998, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of Completion for die draft EIR was filed with die State Clearinghouse.

• The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from April 17, 1998 to June 15, 1998, and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library.

• On June 29, 2001, a Notice of Preparation for die New Alternatives to the Draft EIR was sent to die State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research and to other responsible agencies.

• The New Alternatives to die Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from June 29, 2001 to August 12, 2001, and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and die Huntington Beach Public Library; and

WHEREAS, die Planning Commission held a public meeting on die EIR on September 10, 2002 in which comments were received on die EIR; and

NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of die City of Huntington Beach, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, as follows:

SECTION 1. Pursuant to die foregoing recitations, die following findings are hereby made:

1. The environmental analysis covers die areas of Land Use Compatibility, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Earth Resources, Drainage/Hydrology, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Services and Utilities.

2. As mitigated, there are less than significant impacts on Land Use Compatibility, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Earth Resources, Drainage/Hydrology, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Services and Utilities.

3. There are no significant unavoidable impacts.

ATTACHIVENT NO.

SECTION 3. Based upon the above findings, written comments and verbal testimony, and other evidence received at die public hearings held for die project, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, die Planning Commission further finds as follows:

1. At public hearings, die Planning Commission considered public testimony, staff presentations, and Planning Commission reports on die EIR prepared for die project.

2. The EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects. The EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each of these impacts.

SECTION 4. Based upon die above recitations, findings, and conclusions die Planning Commission hereby determines:

1. Pursuant to Section 15090 of die California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, die Planning Commission certifies that EIR 97-2 (SCH No. 97091051) has been prepared in compliance with die California Environmental Quality Act. It was presented to, and die information contained therein reviewed and considered by, die Planning Commission prior to reaching a decision on die Parkside Estates Project.

2. The Planning Commission of die City of Huntington Beach does hereby certify die EIR Number 97-2 (SCH No. 97091051), set forth in Section 3 above.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED, this 10th day of September, 2002 by die following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Chairperson, Planning Commission

ATTACHVENT NO. __L²-

Submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Sing Joe Kong 5402 Kenilworth Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649

Ms. Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648

August 23, 2002

These are our additional comments on the proposed Shea Homes Project after we have reviewed the four-volume RTC packages (Volumes I, II, IIA and III) made available through our Library System. The comments will be directed toward four specific concerns. Concern I relates to the traffic at the intersection of Graham and Kenilworth. Concern II pertains to the drainage at the northern boundary of the proposed project, which is adjacent to our property. Concern III addresses the effects of excavating, dewatering, back-filling, compacting and grading of the project on the subsidence of our backyard, and finally Concern IV reflects our personal perception of the security of our home during all phases of the project construction. Before we begin the comments, we like to make it clear that we are not challenging the right to build on their land by the developer. We do, however, want to make sure that the proposed project does not adversely affect the environment which we enjoyed so much during the last thirty-six years. We sincerely hope that our concerns will bring about the corrective measures to minimize the impact, by the proposed project, on the safety and quality of our life. A detailed comment on each concern follows:

Concern I With regard to the "Response to SJK-4 Comment" p.4-7. Section 4.1, Vol I, Response to Comments on the Draft EIR and the New alternatives to the Draft EIR, we took notice of a statement that the signal at the project access street, Street A, will ''cause gaps in traffic, which will assist motorists on Kenilworth and Pendleton to gain access to

ATTACHMENT NO. ^..

Graham St. during peaks hours" This statement appeared in many places in Vol I. To name a few: Comments on BO-5 (p.3-90), on SG-4 (p.3-11), on DK-1 (p.3-28), and again on M&JT-2 (p. 3-65). We can not comprehend the existence of "gaps". It is our opinion that the signalized intersection at 'A' Street and Graham will not mitigate the problem at Kenilworth and Graham. Quite the contrary, it will worsen the situation. With the traffic signal located at "A" Street, a mere distance of approximately 250 feet separates 'A" and Kenilworth. It is not hard to visualize the difficulty experienced by the motorists on Kenilworth to safely exit to merge with the northbound traffic on Graham regardless of the color of the traffic light at 'A' Street. Bear in mind that, currently, even without the traffic light at 'A' St., the normal peak hour traffic on both north- and south-bound lanes on Graham is heavy. The traffic is generated by motorists in the immediate communities bordering Graham Street as well as Slater Ave. and the nearby Edward Hill area. Even though it is not quite bumper to bumper, the spacing of motor vehicles traveling in both directions is such that it is hazardous for a motorist on Kenilworth to thread through the southbound traffic on Graham and turn left to merge with the northbound traffic coming down the bridge over the EGGW channel at a higher rate of speed. Now, let us bring the traffic light at 'A' back into the discussion. Consider the scenario of a red light for 'A' Street motorists. There will be no car coming out from the project. But the motorists at Kenilworth will face the same hazard entering into the northbound lanes on Graham as described above. For tills scenario, therefore, the light at 'A' does not really provide a 'gap'. Now, consider the scenario of a green light for the motorist on 'A", some of whom may turn right toward Slater Ave. while others may turn left onto the northbound lane on Graham. As far as the motorists on Kenilworth are concerned, these 'A'-Street motorists might as well be coming from the neighboring Edward Hill and Slater and thus present them. the Kenilworth drivers, the same hazardous driving condition described above. In addition, cars traveling southbound on Graham are stacking up on account of the red light at 'A'. Assuming a "Do Not Block Intersection" or "Keep Intersection Clear" marking to be placed at the intersection, yes, there will be a gap in the southbound traffic lane on Graham allowing the Kenilworth motorist to enter the intersection. But this motorist does not have a clear view of the northbound traffic initiating from "A" Street because his view is blocked by the line of southbound traffic on Graham waiting for the light at "A" to turn

ATTACHMENT NO. ^t^

green. Therefore the so-called gap really does not permit a "safe" access for the Kenilworth motorist. And so, we ask "Where are the gaps?"

Concern II This is our comment on the response to our comment SJK-2. p.3-105. Vol I. The referenced response stated that "existing storm drain must remain functional until a replacement system can be constructed". This statement implies that the current 60"" RCP will eventually be abandoned. The implication is further reinforced by the drainage layout plan shown in Exhibit 42. Vol II EIR Final Report, which depicts the current 60"" drain to be intercepted at the northwest comer of the proposed project and abandoned. The "abandoned" drain is also shown in Figure 4.1 (Developed Drainage Layout Based on Hunsaker & Associates Storm Drain Plan) and Figure 6.1 (Modification of Storm Drain Plan and Concept of Water Quality Control Plan) as appeared in the Final EIR Vol. IIA Technical Appendices. In subsequent charts Exhibit 58 and Exhibit 71 of Vol.11, the interception of the current 60" drain was again noted, but no mention was made on the abandonment of the current 60" line beyond the point of interception. That portion of the line was clearly shown in these Exhibits. To add to the uncertainty (in our mind) of the status of this 60" drain, Mr. Scott Hess, the Planning Manager, indicated during a Planning Commission Study Session on August 13, 2002, which we attended, that the drain will continue to be used. A clarification appears to be in order. If the existing 60" RCP were indeed abandoned for a replacement system at a later date, then the sectional views of the Paseo Park (Exhibit 74a, Vol. II) are incorrect because a drain line was clearly shown to receive the water run-off from the Paseo Park area. A more serious consequence clearly indicates that, without the 60" drain, all the water run-off from the higher ground in and around the Paseo Park would gravitate to the lowest point in the Park, which is the bottom of our wall. This, in our opinion, is a serious defect in the Drainage Plan and creates a grave consequence to us. That is why we need a clarification.

Concern m Reference is made to the PMK-5 response on p.4-20 of Vol. II Final EIR, which stated in part "Evaluation of the causes of past distress to existing properties is beyond project's purview. The grading plans for the new alternatives place the Paseo

ATTACHMENT NO, 43

Park. a 50-foot wide passive land use, between the existing properties on the north and "B" Street. Neither dewatering nor remedial grading will be required for that area. Trucks delivering rock and/or soil during the grading operation, as well as heavy earth moving equipment, will thus be removed from the existing properties by 50 feet of more. This /.one will greatly reduce the vibrations that conceivably could be realized on adjacent properties as a result of grading and/or construction activities. Consequently, these grading activities are expected lo have no impact on northerly adjacent properties" First of all, we for one do not expect the contractor to evaluate the causes of past distress to our properties. Secondly, we do not share the optimistic expectancy of the contractor's geotechnical consultant that there is no impact on our property. We can not accept such vaguely worded statement of "greatly reduced" How greatly is greatly? We arc dealing with an impact, which could be detrimental to our valued procession, our home. As such, the impact should not be lightly treated and deposed off with a few chosen words. Instead, it should be quantified. It is a known fact that the soil subsidence has been occurring in our as well as our neighbor's backyards ever since we moved in our present residence. It is a highly undesirable phenomenon. Admittedly the rate of subsidence does not appear to be alarmingly fast (the footing of our back wall has sunk approximately 17 inches at the eastern end and about 1-2 inches at the western end in thirty-six years). We certainly do not want to see this condition be aggravated by whatever ground preparations to be performed for the project, which include overexcavating, dewatering, refilling, compacting and grading including a landfill operation amounting to 583.000 cubic yards (PMK-5 response, p.4-22).

The subsidence of our yard away from the back wall, the concrete patio specifically, is also evident, although it is of a much less degree than the wall. The subsidence manifests itself in the forms of hairline cracks on the surface of the concrete and concentrates in the eastern end of the patio. Again, we must reiterate that we do not intend to ask anyone to evaluate the cause of past distress. We bring forth this discussion for a reason. Historically, ever since we took our residency 36 years ago, the land behind us is always empty. During its ownership by the Southern California DWP. it was occasionally plowed by the farmers as a bean field. The farming activities have increased perceptively ever since Shea Homes purchased the land. Many different kinds of vegetables are grown

ATTACHMENT NO. <4

there all year around. We have since observed the cracks started to increase in size as well as raise to form steps at the eastern end. At the central portion and the western end of the patio, hairline cracks began to show and eventually became bigger. We strongly believe that the problem of our patio is essentially caused by the accumulated ground movements as a result of the vibration induced by me farming vehicle/equipment. We so believe because we felt the earth shook as the vehicles passing back and forth behind us. Bear in mind that these are the farming vehicles. Compare to the huge scrapers, backhoes, loaders, lowboys, excavators, water trucks, concrete trucks and transit mixers to be utilized by the project (Ref.p.4-22, Vol II), the farming vehicles would look like toys.

Based on various responses to the written and/or verbal comments, it can be surmised that the land, the bean field, will undergo significant perturbation as a result of the grading preparation by the proposed project. As an example, part of the response to RWQCB-3 through RWQCB-5 on p.4-92 of Vol II Final EIR is quoted below:

"According to the project geotechnical consultant, the recommended grading process includes overexcavation of loose/soft, compressible soils to depths varying from 5 to 19 feet"....."The grading and construction dewatering effort will consist of a combination of several techniques. The primary technique, which will be used in proximity to the northerly project development limit, will be initiated approximately 40 feet south of the north boundary and will consist of accomplishing the excavation of the upper 4± feet with conventional earth moving equipment (scrapers). At that point, excavation of wetter materials will be accomplished with a large excavator (backhoe). The excavation will predominately be 10 feet deep or less except for the extreme easterly one-third of the boundary where removal will be on the order of 15 feet. Dewatering of this northerly boundary area will be accomplished by surface pumps within the excavation. The excavation will be segment in approximate 200 x 200 feet ± increments that will be refilled with a mixture of materials from an adjacent excavation and drier import materials as needed. Within the interior of the project, dewatering will be accomplished with surface pumps, supplemented with local shallow well points, and dewatering wells. Remedial grading activities

ATTACHMENT NO. 4^-

will be set back from the north property line be at least 40 feel al the top of excavation and 50 feet at the bottom.

The grading plans for the new alternatives place the Paseo Park, a 50-foot wide passive land use, between the existing properties on the north and "B" Street. Neither dewatering nor remedial grading w'\\\ be required for that area." Based on the forgoing quotations, the type of earth preparation is definitely more intrusive to the land than the surface plowing of much lighter fanning equipment. If we can fed the ground vibration from these farming activities, why shouldn't we fee! the impact of the vibratory excitation from the much bigger and heavier machines? It is our opinion that a mere 40-50 feel in the form of a Paseo Park will not be sufficient to attenuate the ground disturbance to the point of "no impact is expected". We do not want to be controversial and disagree with the expert opinion of the geotechnical consultant. We merely want to be assured of a secure environment. And the assurance has to be based on facts, not words. To this end, we propose that ground movements to be monitored by the developer with the cognizance of the City Engineer al selected locations before, during and after the construction of the project. We will offer our back yard as an experiment platform on which various earth-movement measuring devices including but not limited to strain gages and accelerometers could be mounted.

Concern IV This is an issue of personal safely and security, which is closely tied in with the status of the wall in our back. After reviewing the pertinent responses concerning the "wall"' in the Final EIR, vol. II. we don't know whether the wall stays as is or to be torn down. While the Mitigation Measure No.3 (Ref. P 5-113) stated that "prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall produce evidence (specs) acceptable to the City Engineer that the new walls along the project's northern property will be constructed to achieve maximum sound attenuation", other response in the same Final EIR appears to be less positive. To wit: Response to DR-4, p.3-75,

"Shea originally proposed to build a 6" ± high masonry wall along the north (adjacent to Kenilworth), east and south boundaries of the site........... .Under the

new alternatives analyzed in the June 2001 document, a new 6-foot high masonry wa!5 would not be needed along the north boundary for privacy/aesthetic reasons

ATTACHMENT NO. ^

(due to the 133-foot buffer, which includes the 50-foot paseo park); however, the City may choose to require a new wall along the north boundary. If a wall is required by the City, the developer would attempt to obtain cooperation from the owner of the adjacent property to remove and replace the existing wall. The City typically does not permit dual wall situations for health and safety reasons. The single wall would avoid nuisance of hazards and satisfy maintenance concerns." We like to know when the City will make the decision on the subject wall. If the decision is for a new wall, when the current wall will be torn down, during what phase of the project the wall demolition will take place, and how long we will be without a wall in our back yard. We also like to know whether any precautionary measure is contemplated by the City to safeguard our security during the period that our back yard is wide open. A similar concern was addressed to Mr. Jim Barnes of the Department of Community Development in our letter of June 6, 1998, but we received no response. We realize that a 6-foot block wall is not a security guarantee (Records in Huntington Beach Police Department might reveal that someone climbed over our back wall on April 10, 2002 and tried to break in our house.) but why invite trouble by leaving the back yard wide open.

Sincerely,

9^L./^.

Mr. & Mrs. Sing Joe Kong /

ATTACHMENT NO. ^

To: Planning Commission (Names)

Subject: Draft EIR No. 97-2

Follow up to comments delivered to the Planning Commission on 8/27/02

Let me first thank you for opening the meeting to informal comments. As you are aware, I have followed the development plans since it was first proposed and in particular have questioned the mitigation measures to return the proposed borrow site to it's natural state, the single access to the site, and the request for assurance that no access can be allowed onto Greenleaf Lane from the new development.

I had hoped to formally express my concerns at the first scheduled hearing on September 10, 2002. However, I will be vacationing in Ireland. Therefore, I request that this letter be placed in the record and hopefully read into the record.

As I stated Tuesday evening I am a Registered Civil/Structural Engineer and hold California General Engineering "A" Contractor's License. I currently work as a Consultant to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) advising the Authority in matters of Construction cost estimates and claims. I have resided at 17192 Greenleaf Lane since 1984.

My main concern is that a second and logical egress from the proposed development be provided to Bolsa Chica Street. Serious consideration should be given to the alignment B (middle extension). The main objection to this access appears to be location of archaeological sites and the steep slope of the terrain. Concerning the Archaeological sites there are approved procedures for their relocation. Regarding the slope and encroachment on build out space., this can be minimized by a design utilizing retaining walls to allow re-grading to achieve the required 8 percent grade. The benefits are two-fold. It mitigates the perceived traffic problem on Graham with one entrance and it ensures that no egress will later be approved onto Greenleaf Lane.

The above being said, I have followed the evolution of the EIR and believe that Shea and its Consultants have done a good job of trying to mitigate the concerns of the residents. In summary, as a Professional Engineer and neighbor to the proposed development I believe the proposed development is a win - win situation for the city and the developer. I hope the Planning Commission will think strategically and find a way to allow egress to Bolsa Chica Street from the proposed development and do what's right good for the Community

Thank you, / ^-^- ' <^-<-^ ^^^

.Joe Buley, PE, "A"' License

ATTACHMENT MH .'^•?,_

RECEIVED SEP 0 5 2002

September 5, 2002 Dear Planning Commission,

I am writing to publicly comment on Shea Homes' proposed Parkside development project. I have lived in Huntington Beach for 19 years and currently reside off of Graham Street near the Shea property. I do not understand how this project can be approved based upon the many omissions, inadequacies, and factual errors contained in the project's "Final" EIR.

The traffic study (Volume IIA, Technical Appendix 1) is inadequate. The car count was done in 1994 for Warner and 1996 for Graham—well before 1998 when Home Depot was relocated to Warner Ave, thereby omitting a key travel destination from the study. It also does not include traffic data on the Gym currently being constructed at Marine View Middle School, where student enrollment has increased 14% between the 1996/97 and 2001/02 school year. However, the part of the study that is truly baffling is the conclusion that not a single vehicle from the Parkside development would be making a morning trip to Marine View School—the study's car counts remain stagnant! That's right: Not one single student -will be driven to school from Parkside. How can this be possible when the westernmost residential lot of the proposed project is nearly one (1) mile from the school?

II.

EIR Volume II, Section 5.5 (Noise) does not discuss the specific noise impacts resulting from adding a signal at Graham & "A" street. The Noise section of the EIR describes all impacts in terms of CNEL 24-hour averages, which is essentially a pro-development tool for disguising the true impact of noise into a measure which doesn't reflect how people experience sound in real life (just ask anyone who's lived under the take-off flight path for John Wayne Airport, when CNEL was used to argue that nobody would notice extra takeoffs). A new signal would change Graham's southbound "through" traffic noise into "stop & go" traffic noise, which has higher sound spikes as people accelerate from a dead stop to go up & over the Wintersburg bridge.

III.

EIR Volume II Section 3.7 (Proposed Actions) says,

"The City also proposes to remove the fire station designation and descriptions of a fire station on the site, found within the General Plan;

since no lowland development was approved as part of the Bolsa Chica project, the City has determined that a fire station at this location is

Attachment NO. ^

unnecessary. Therefore, it is requesting removal of this designation from Figure PF-1 Public Facility Locations."

The EIR blatantly contradicts the City's General Plan Public Facilities and Public Services Element, which states, "If the proposed Cross-Gap Connector is not constructed, two fire stations will be required. The two stations are proposed to be located in the Edwards/Garfield area and the Graham/Kenilworth area." Nor does the EIR address the impacts to surrounding neighborhoods as a result of removing the proposed fire station from the General Plan. That impact omission is all the more alarming considering information contained elsewhere in the EIR that admits that the area does not currently meet response time standards (see below).

IV. EIR Volume II Section 5.10 (Public Services and Utilities) states:

"Response time from the Heil Station is estimated to be five minutes. Warner Station is equipped with a four-person paramedic engine. Response time from the Warner Station is estimated to be five minutes and 30 seconds. These stations provide fire protection, emergency medical aid (paramedic level), and emergency ambulance transportation.

Fire Station #8 at 5891 Heil Avenue is planned to be relocated to Graham and Production Lane by the year 2000 in order to mitigate a response deficiency that exists in the industrial section of the City of Huntington Beach. This will result in Station #8 being one and three-quarter (1 3/4) miles instead of one mile from the project site, making Warner Station #7 the closest station to the site. Fire Station #6 located on Edwards Street near Ellis Avenue is scheduled to be constructed in late 1998, which will be a back-up unit to the proposed project site. Currently, fire department response time to the project area does not meet the criteria established by the Cities Growth Management Committee. This policy requires a fire department response time under five minutes 80 percent of the time."

The EIR's "acceptable" fire safety mitigation measures—smoke alarms, automatic sprinklers, a traffic signal, and implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 ("additional fire code requirements" as need)—do not address medical safety or medical response. Emergency call types to the HB Fire Department have remained constant over the past decade:

• 1992 - 70% of all F.D. calls were for medical aid; 6% for fires. (1992 Draft General Plan)

ATTACHMENT NO. ^.10

• 1996 " 68% of all F.D. calls were for medical aid; 6% for fires. (1996 General Plan)

• 2001 - 65% of all F.D. calls were for medical aid. Just 3% were for fires. (HBFD annual report, 2001)

Why does the EIR contain mitigations for something that seldom occurs yet does not mitigate for something that occurs the majority of the time? There is NO mention of the medical safety impacts in the EIR, and certainly no mitigations are proposed to deal with the medical aid response time issue.

The EIR's Water Quality analysis does not consider the impact of increased activity by the Slater Pump Station. Shea runoff entering the polluted Slater Channel will cause the pumps to run more frequently than they presently do. This will result in a greater number of days where existing Slater Channel pollution is pumped into the Wintersburg Channel, flowing down into already-polluted Huntington Harbour.

Furthermore, the County will require permits for the pumps Shea wants to add to the Slater Pump Station, as permits have been obtained for pumps previously added. It is not mentioned in the EIR that the County might impose an automatic throttle-back limit to prevent the new pumps from causing the Wintersburg Channel to overflow. The recent County-permitted expansion of the Shields Pump Station located approximately 1 mile upstream the Wintersburg Channel (between Springdale and Edwards) includes a stilling well float sensor that throttles back the pumps once a specific water surface elevation is reached in the channel. The same County policies that apply to the Shields Pump Station would likely apply to the new pumps at the Slater Pump Station when obtaining the Shea pumps permit. Therefore, if the Wintersburg Channel is already full, the developer's new pumps won't be able to run at full capacity, thus putting the already overcommitted Slater Channel at risk for overflowing.

The permit process may also result in conditions capable of changing the whole nature of the drainage system and the FEMA COLMR, as the base flood elevations mentioned therein become suspect and form the basis for an appeal.

VI.

EIR Volume II Section 8.1 (Environmental Impacts Found Not to be Significant) states, "It is not anticipated that the proposed residential project will produce any noticeable objectionable odors." However, EIR Volume IIA Section 5 (Water Quality) page 4-1 says:

"Although the storm drain system is designed to accommodate the flow during the 100-year storm event, it has certain deficiencies during non-

ATTACHMENT NO. <11

storm periods. Water elevation in the Slater Channel during non-storm period is frequently higher than the invert elevations of the storm drains at Nodes 250, 211 and 608. The flap gate at node 609 is provided to minimize the reverse flow from the Slater Channel to the storm drain system during non-storm periods. Even if the flap gate is fully leak proof, dry weather flow from on-site and off-site areas is expected to accumulate within the storm drain system. This may create anaerobic conditions and produce odor problems within the development."

Thus the Technical Appendix warns of possible odor problems, while the main EIR volume claims there will not be any objectionable odors. Well, which is it? And if there are possible odor problems, why isn't there any suggested mitigation?

VII.

Shea's repeated claims that the Parkside project is an "infill" project are bogus.

EIR Volume II Section 7.2 (Growth Inducing Impacts):

"The proposed project site represents an area containing undeveloped land, surrounded by development. As such, it can be viewed as an infill site and a logical extension of the development of land uses surrounding the site. It can also be viewed as an opportunity to provide a complementary, cohesive land use to surrounding suburban areas. The project site is surrounded by residential development to the north, east, and south beyond the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel."

Aerial photos (http://www.bixby.org/parkside/where.html; look especially at the photo at the bottom of this page) beg to differ with this assessment. Viewed from above, this project isn't "filling in" anything; instead, it is cutting off\he eastern end of the open Bolsa Chica wetlands space.

VIII.

Lastly, there are several typos of fact in the so-called "Final" EIR's Volume II, despite the claim in the "Summary of Changes" that, "The Final EIR includes changes in response to typographical errors found" and "The changes to the original text.. .which consist of completeness or accuracy edits, are being corrected at this time." These typos result in inaccuracy errors, which mar the overall trustworthiness of the EIR. Three examples:

• Marine View Middle School, Volume II, page 5-175: "It is approximately four (4) miles from the site." Actually, it is four-tenths (4/10) miles from the site.

ATTACHMENT NO. -4^.

• Huntington Beach High School, Volume II, page 5-176 "It is located at 1905 Main Street, approximately two and one-half (2 1/2) miles from the site." Actually, it is four and one-half (4 1/2) miles from the site.

• OCTA bus trips on Graham between Warner and Slater, Volume II, page 5-177: "Two of these trips run on Graham Street." The bus stops were removed from Graham Street in September 2000, so the current bus trip count is zero (0).

IX. To summarize, the "Final" EIR is deficient and inadequate in the following areas:

1. Outdated and insufficient Traffic Study

2. Noise impact analysis

3. Non-Compliance with the City's General Plan concerning the Fire Station Designation and Response Times

4. Mitigation measures for Medical Safety

5. Water quality analysis & flood control issues

6. Odor problem analysis

7. Misleading claim of project on an "infill" site

8. Inaccuracies from typos (which should have been corrected)

It is also worth mentioning that a recent court case (Saddleback Canyons Conservancy v. County of Orange) found an EIR lacking because "the report didn't adequately examine the potential effects of the [project] on local water quality." (OC REGISTER, 8/17/02) The LA TIMES (8/17/02) reported that the EIR was rejected because "the project was not in keeping with planning regulations for the area." The Planning Commission should keep the ruling in mind when determining the worthiness of the Shea EIR and the Parkside Project.

Thank you,

^'Mrs. Julie Bixby ;/ '^17451 Hillgate Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707

-ATTACHMENT NO. ^4^.

CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH

2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION

deceived

To: Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner, crp n a who From: Charles W. Burney, Fire Marshall/Division Chief Date: September 4,2002

SUBJECT: PARKSIDE ESTATES DEVELOPMENT, FIRE STATION AND RESPONSE TIME ISSUES

This memo is to address the questions and concerns expressed at the August 27, 2002, Planning Commission Study Session regarding the need for a fire station in the Parkside Estates Project and the overall response deficiencies identified in the General Plan for the areas near this development.

A 1992 consultant's report that identified the need for a fire station in this area of the city and recommended the relocation of Station 8 was based on the development of 4800 homes in the Koll Bolsa Chica Project including a Cross Connector Road. The fire station's primary location as recommended in the report was at the south end of Springdale. This report further identifies the need for two fire stations if the Cross Connector Road is not developed, one at the Kenilworth & Graham location and a second at Garfield and Edwards. When development of the Bolsa Chica was limited to the mesa, coverage for the low land area was incorporated into the planning and selection of a site for Station 6. The location of Station 6 was specifically chosen near Edwards and Ellis to provide the necessary coverage to the low land area adjacent to the Bolsa Chica. Based on the number of homes and anticipates service demand of the Parkside Estates Project, it does not justify the construction of a new fire station. A change in the General Plan to remove the reference to a fire station is necessary now that Station 6 is operational.

The General Plan also needs to be amended to reflect the current capabilities of Station 6 to provide coverage for the low land area identified as response time deficient. Tests conducted by the Fire Department demonstrate that Station 6 has a consistent response time of 4 minute 30 seconds to the intersection of Slater and Graham. This intersection is at the northerly boundary of the deficient area and the Fire Department is confident that Station 6 is capable of meeting the 5 minute emergency response time required to mitigate the deficiency.

Cc: Michael P. Dolder, Fire Chief

ATTACHMENT NO,

Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA guidelines, City policies, and certification that the data was considered in final decisions on the project.

2. Annexation 98-1. The property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting annexation of the 4.5-acre county parcel to the City of Huntington Beach through the Local Agency, Formation Commission (LAFCO/ Shea Homes will also propose a concurrent annexation to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD).

3. General Plan Amendment No. 98-1. The City of Huntington Beach is proposing to amend the City's General Plan Land Use Map to accommodate a park site as part of the project. The City proposes to modify the Land Use Map so that a portion of the site designated RL-7 is changed to OS-PR (Open Space - Parks and Recreation). The City also proposes to remove the fire station designation and descriptions of a fire station on the site, found within the General Plan; since no lowland development was approved as part of the Bolsa Chica project and since Station #6 is currently operational, the City has determined that a fire station at this location is unnecessary. Therefore, it is requesting removal of this designation from Figure PF-1 Public Facility Locations. Third, the property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting to amend the General Plan to designate the 4.5-acre County of Orange parcel to RL-7 (Residential Low Density).

4. Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5. The property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting a zone map amendment from RL-FP2 to RL-FP2-CZ, which would add the Coastal Zone suffix to the residential zoning. The City is requesting a zone map amendment from RA-CZ to OS-PR-CZ, which would bring the zoning into consistency with the General Plan and to amend a portion of the RL-FP2-CZ zone to OS-PR-CZ to reflect the park boundary. The purpose of the zone amendments are to 1) clean up the zoning map by correcting an omission on the zoning map; and 2) bring the zoning (on the park component of the project) into consistency with the General Plan designation. Additionally, the property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting a map amendment to prezone the 4.5-acre County of Orange parcel as RL-FP2-CZ (Residential Low Density -Floodplain District - Coastal Zone).

5. Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City) and Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 (County). The property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide the site into lots for development.

6. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-90. The property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for proposed development which includes the following:

a. Dual-product lot sizes to include 50-foot wide lots with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet (with an average lot size of over 5,700 square feet), and 60-foot wide lots with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet (with an average lot size of over 7,000 square feet);

Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities

5.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES

Information used in the preparation of this analysis was obtained through letters and phone conversations with public services and utilities in October, 1997 through February, 1998. Utility service questionnaires are contained in Appendix A of this EIR.

EXISTING CONDITIONS Fire

The following information is based on correspondence from the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department dated October 8, 1997 and conversations/correspondence dated September 4, 2002. Fire protection for the proposed project will be provided by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. The site will be served by two three stations. The first is the Heil Fire Station #8 located at 5891 Heil Street, approximately one and one-half (1 Vi) miles from the project site. The second station serving the site is the Warner Station #7 at 3831 Warner Avenue, approximately one and one half (1 Vi) two (2) miles from the project site. The third station is the Edwards Station #6 at 18951 Edwards Street approximately 2 % miles from the site.

Heil Station is equipped with a four-person paramedic engine company. Response time from the Heil Station is estimated to be five minutes. Warner Station is equipped with a four-person paramedic engine. Response time from the Warner Station is estimated to be five minutes and 30 seconds. Edwards Station is equipped with a four-person paramedic engine company and two-person engine company. Response time from the Edwards Station is estimated to be five minutes. These stations provide fire protection, emergency medical aid (paramedic level), and emergency ambulance transportation.

Fire Station #8 at 5891 Heil Avenue is planned to be relocated to Graham and Production Lane ~~by the year 2000~~ as funding permits in order to mitigate a response deficiency that exists in the industrial section of the City of Huntington Beach. This will result in Station #8 being one and three-quarter (l³/^) miles instead of one and one-half (1 'A) miles from the project site., making Warner Station ff7 ~~the closest station to the site.~~ Fire Station #6 located on Edwards Street near Ellis Avenue was is ~~scheduled to be~~ constructed in 2000 ~~late 1998, which will be~~ and is currently a back-up unit to the proposed project site. With the relocation of Station #8, Station #6 would be assigned as the primary responding station.

Currently, fire department response time to the project area does not meet the criteria established by the Cities Growth Management Committee. This policy requires a fire department response time under five minutes 80 percent of the time.

Police

The following information is based on correspondence from the City of Huntington Beach Police Department dated October 13, 1997. Police service is provided to the project area by the Huntington Beach Police Department. The project site encompasses Reporting District # 176. The Department is currently responsible for crime prevention, investigation, and enforcement of

5-174

ATTACHMENT NO. ^r?-

Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities

(z) Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans.

Additionally, for the purposes of this EIR, expansion of existing services due to project demand constitutes a significant impact if the provider anticipates substantial difficulty in providing increased service. All public services and utilities have been analyzed to assess capacity impacts associated with the proposed project.

Fire

Future development of the project site may create a need for additional fire protection services. The increase in the number of residential units and the number of individuals brought into the area, as well as the resulting increase in traffic will directly affect the fire department's responses.

Currently, fire department response time from the Heil and ~~Warner~~ Edwards stations to the project area do »et meet the criteria established by the Cities Growth Management Committee, which requires a fire department response time under five minutes 80 percent of the time. As indicated previously, the Heil Station at 5891 Heil Avenue, although currently only one and one half(\ ¥2} miles away from the project site, is planned to be relocated to Graham and Production Lane by the Year 2QOQas funding permits, resulting in the fire station being located one and three-quarter (1 V^) miles away from the project site. Additional impacts to current response times are anticipated with relocation of the fire station. Response time from the new location to the project site would be greater than five minutes. However, Station #6 located near Edwards and Ellis became operational in 2000 and tests conducted by the Fire Department demonstrate that Station #6 is capable of meeting the 5 minute emergency response time for the project

~~Warner Station if? would become the closest station to the project site, being located one and one half(l'/2) miles from the site with a response time of five and a half (5 Vi) minutes.~~

Potentially, one additional fire company will be required at the new facility at Graham and Production Lane. Capital revenue for this new facility is currently under negotiation with the development of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. The most likely source for revenue will come from the City's General Fund. Additionally, the fire department has reviewed the proposed access points (i.e., one full access off Graham Street and one "emergency only" access [which was initially proposed as a full access] at Greenleaf Lane) and have concluded that the proposal is acceptable from a fire safety standpoint as long as a traffic signal is installed at the Graham access (refer to traffic mitigation) and Mitigation Measure 1 of this section is implemented. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce impacts related to the need for adequate response times and additional fire protection services to a level less than significant.

Police

Development within the project area will adversely impact the level of police services presently provided. Calls for service will increase, requiring additional staff and office time to manage the

5-179

ATTACHMENT NO. ^^