Neighbors for Wintersburg
Wetlands Restoration
17451 Hillgate,
__________________________________________________________________
City of
Department of Planning
Planning Commission
RE: Parkside Estates
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to you regarding various Parkside Estates issues that remain unresolved as we head into the September 24th continuation meeting. We believe that the EIR should not be certified at this time because of multiple serious deficiencies. Furthermore, if these deficiencies are someday corrected and the EIR is eventually certified, there are various changes we would like to see in the conditions for the project.
1. Justification for Re-opening the Public Hearing
Although the public hearing was closed at the conclusion of the Parkside agenda item on September 10th, we feel the hearing needs to be re-opened on September 24th due to the following reasons:
- Distribution of the September 10th staff reports was botched and they did not appear in the HB central library until Monday September 9th. Several residents attempted to view the staff reports at the library over the preceding weekend but were unsuccessful because the reports were not yet available at the Reference desk.
- The updated traffic study was released on September 9th, leaving insufficient time for thoughtful public analysis prior to the September 10th public hearing.
- There was significant new California Coastal Commission and Rivertech water quality correspondence released on September 9th and 10th, leaving insufficient time for thoughtful public analysis prior to the September 10th public hearing.
- Planning
Commissioners had many unresolved questions at the conclusion of the
September 10th public hearing, and asked that staff provide
answers in writing. The public
needs a chance to review these same answers and to comment on any errors
or omissions therein.
2. Problems with the September 9,
2002 Traffic Study
While it is gratifying to see that our concerns with the
stale traffic data in the July 2002 Final EIR were taken seriously enough to
warrant the new traffic study dated September 9, 2002, the timing and content
of this new study raise some significant new issues that we believe allow us to
challenge the validity of this new study, too.
2.1 Some Data Collected BEFORE School Resumed
The appendix section of the new traffic report contains
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) summary sheets on page 16 and 18
showing that Graham & Warner intersection data was collected on
Since peak traffic conditions in this area are driven by Marine
View, collecting any data when school is not in session will produce an
undercount not representative of typical peak conditions.
2.2 Holiday Week Traffic Counts Atypical
The new traffic study counted cars on
We assert that counting cars under the lighter than normal
traffic conditions of the 4-day post-Labor Day work week has produced an
undercount not representative of typical peak conditions.
2.3 School Enrollment Takes a Few Weeks to Ramp Up
According to Sharon Tugwell of OVSD Financial Services, school enrollment slowly increases during the first few weeks as clueless parents realize that school has resumed, as families return from summer vacations, and as new students transfer in from year-round districts with differing academic calendars. Because of this variability, the district will not even bother collecting their first official enrollment statistics for 2002 until September 27th.
Therefore, any traffic study (such as this one) that
measures traffic on the first two days of school will likely produce an
undercount not representative of typical peak conditions.
2.4 HCM Summary Sheet Intersection Delay Times Suspect
The HCM summary sheets in the appendix contain delay times for the Graham & Glenstone intersection. However, due to the impaired sightlines from where the human traffic counters were parked on the south side of the Wintersburg bridge, it would have been impossible to see the trailing, northernmost edge of the queue of Graham cars waiting to turn left onto Glenstone. If you cannot see the end of the queue, you cannot accurately measure the queue delay time.
The arrow in the following photograph indicates the position where the human traffic counters were dangerously and illegally parked in the bike lane in a no-parking zone on the Wintersburg bridge:
Because the parking location was on the down slope of the bridge, the top of the bridge impedes the sightlines that would be required to see the end of the left turn queue.
The following photograph shows what a driver parked in the above location would see when looking in the rear view mirror:
Note that the above photograph is of a reflection in the
driver’s rear view mirror of the author’s Camry, and so
2.5 Unrealistic Benefits from Restriping
Comparing HCM summary sheet pages 36 and 40 shows that the
applicant believes their Graham restriping “mitigation” will reduce the Marine
View drop-off delay from 29.45 seconds (likely too low – see item 2.4 above) down
to 13.46 seconds. This is an absolutely
fraudulent claim, because Marine View drop-off drivers are already driving in
the same imaginary left turn median that the applicant proposes to paint on the
road. Since restriping would simply
mirror existing behavior, there will be no major change in intersection delay
time.
2.6 Summary
The September 2002 traffic study confirms that existing traffic is indeed worse than depicted in the July 2002 Final EIR. It is worth noting to compare the Graham & Glenstone AM peak HCM summary sheets for the 1997 and 2002 “existing plus project” cumulative conditions (pages 28 and 36). We see that southbound Graham turning left onto Glenstone has degraded from LOS B down to LOS D.
Since LOS D is considered to be the minimum acceptable Level of Service, it is important to redo the traffic study in a manner safe from accusations of undercounting. Perhaps an accurate count will show the true condition to be LOS E (i.e. unacceptable).
3. A Rebuttal to Dick Harlow Regarding Graham & Neargate
The applicant’s lobbyist, Dick Harlow, conveniently gave the last public comment on September 10th without any opportunity for rebuttal. Harlow asserted that since the Neargate tract west of Graham and south of Slater doesn’t experience any traffic-related problems with their single entrance/exit, then the similar-sized Parkside project won’t experience (or cause) any traffic problems either with their single entrance/exit at “A” street.
This laughable statement is basically comparing apples to orangutans, completely ignoring the fact that these two intersection environments are totally different.
First, the 2002 edition of Thomas Bros. Maps shows the Parkside segment of Graham to be arterial, whereas the Neargate segment is non-arterial:
Second, Graham dead-ends south of Neargate. The only traffic on this segment of Graham is from Neargate or Ridgebury residents; there is no through traffic:
Not a through street
Third, the Graham traffic volumes and congestion are much, much higher at “A” street that at Neargate. The following photograph shows what southbound Graham morning peak traffic looks like at “A” street:
4. Implications of the Coastal Commission/Rivertech Letters
The September 10th Rivertech letter on water
quality is interesting (and be sure to reread the September 9th Coastal
Commission letter that prompted the Rivertech letter). Basically it
confirms the Coastal Commission's assertion that the CDS technology specified
in the 1998 report (EIR Volume IIA) is nowhere near the claimed 90% efficiency
rating. The letter then refers to the 2002 water quality addendum (also
EIR Volume IIA), saying they promise to do future specified BMPs (Best
Management Practices), and come up with an as yet unwritten Urban Runoff
Management Plan prior to issuance of the grading permit.
What we have here is confirmation of the "leading edge vs. bleeding
edge" scenario contained in my long PowerPoint presentation (see http://www.bixby.org/parkside/multimedia.html).
CDS was leading edge in 1998, but had a very skimpy track record with only 9
installations in the
Shea/Rivertech (and likely Public Works too) became aware of this problem, and
wrote the 2002 water quality addendum that appears in EIR Volume IIA (http://www.bixby.org/parkside/documents/EIR/VolumeIIA/5/2002.pdf).
However, this little document only talks about adding extra BMPs and promising
to create an URMP in order to meet standards. NOTE THAT THERE IS NO
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FAILINGS OF THE CDS TECHNOLOGY IN THIS SECTION OF THE
EIR. This little tidbit would have remained hidden were it not for the
Coastal Commission's September 9th letter. I guess you could say the EIR
is covering up the CDS unit's problems. If I was a planning commissioner,
I might be a little peeved about that!
All sides agree that CDS is not sufficient. Hence the creation of the
"treatment train" described in the 2002 addendum. And if you
read the very last paragraph of the September 10th Rivertech letter, it says
they are "currently investigating the use of sand filters for treating
urban runoff". So they're not even
finished yet specifying the structural BMPs! Not to mention that future
URMP that hasn't even been written yet.
How is it even possible that a
project like Parkside -- which hasn't finished its structural water quality
design and hasn't finished creating its management plan for dealing with urban
runoff -- is up for approval? If the Planning Commission approves this
project on September 24th, it will be really only approving on the basis of
vague water quality promises. What has been completed at this point in time will not meet water quality
standards.
Beware of promises from applicants who omit bad news from EIRs.
The City should use its maximum leverage that only exists in the
pre-approve/deny stage to get the applicant to really and truly commit to what
their plans are going to be for ensuring that our local water quality isn't
harmed by this project.
5. Subsidence - Up Close and Personal
Homes on
Patios are cracking:
Walls are separating:
The southern boundary wall is sinking:
Extensive rework is needed to restore the original height and level surface (note that 12 inches were added to restore the original wall height):
6. Ponding Demonstrates Wetlands Status
We have an extensive photographic archive showing the multiple consecutive days of ponding required to demonstrate that this land is indeed a wetlands:
We also have photographs showing active grading being done to fill in the pond areas:
Yet despite the best efforts of the applicant, the land reasserts its true wetlands nature, resulting in a tractor becoming stuck for several weeks in a large lake:
The best 164 of these images are available on a companion
CDROM labeled “Shea Ponding Vol. I”.
Filenames use YYMMDD date-based prefixes to tell you when each
photograph was taken. This free CDROM is
available upon request from the author.
Planning Commissioners should have received a copy in their Planning
Commission agenda packets.
7. EIR Deficiencies
We believe the July 2002 Final EIR is fatally deficient as currently written and should not be certified.
7.1 Traffic
7.1.1 Graham Restriping as a Fraudulent Mitigation
The EIR proposes restriping
A genuine mitigation that would truly help Graham would be to install a signal at the intersection with Glenstone. However, the EIR does not consider this option.
7.1.2 Kenilworth Left Turn Impact Omitted
The EIR asserts that adding a signal at the project’s “A”
street intersection with Graham will have no negative impact on traffic
circulation. This patently absurd
statement ignores the extreme length of the southbound Graham queue waiting to
turn left at Glenstone. Adding a signal
at “A” street will guarantee that this queue extends northward from the new
signal so that it will block cars trying to exit from
This impact is not acknowledged in the EIR, nor are any mitigations offered.
7.1.3 September 9th 2002
Traffic Study Flawed
The updated traffic study contains numerous flaws that
invite charges of undercounting. The
loyal opposition thanks you for giving us so many easy things to challenge.
7.2 Drainage/Hydrology
The EIR assumes that no County permit will be needed to install the additional pumps at the Slater Pump Station, but dedicated work by the loyal opposition has prompted the County to say that a permit WILL BE REQUIRED. The EIR does not consider the impacts of any conditions the County will impose on this permit, including but not limited to stilling well throttle-back sensors or on-site detention facilities. Some of these possible conditions have the potential to invalidate the current FEMA CLOMR, which in turn could alter the amount of fill required for this project to meet flood insurance regulations.
The applicant has agreed that seeking a County permit is
acceptable, and we ask that this be REQUIRED as a condition of this
project. Due to the potential
significant impacts involved in seeking such a permit, a dialog must be started
with the County and additional analysis performed before this EIR can be
certified.
7.3 Water Quality
The EIR does not analyze the negative water quality impacts
resulting from the increased pumping of the Slater Pump Station that will occur
due to the project’s runoff being dumped into the Slater Channel. The Slater Channel is highly polluted and
this project will cause that pollution to enter the Wintersburg Channel more
frequently, eventually flowing down into Bolsa Chica and
As the September 10th Coastal Commission letter
points out, the water quality impact of this project upon Bolsa Chica and
Furthermore, the EIR does not analyze moving the 2 new storm pumps to the northern side of the Wintersburg Channel as an alternative drainage method that would directly connect to the Wintersburg without first passing through the polluted Slater Channel, thus yielding superior water quality.
There is a passage hidden in EIR Volume IIA in the 1998 water quality report on page 4-1 that reads:
“Although the storm
drain system is designed to accommodate the flow during the 100-year storm
event, it has certain deficiencies during
non-storm periods. Water elevation in the Slater Channel during non-storm
periods is frequently higher than the invert elevations of the storm drains at
Nodes 250,211 and 608. The flap gate at node 609 is provided to minimize the
reverse flow from the Slater Channel to the storm drain system during non-storm
periods. Even if the flap gate is fully leak proof,
dry weather flow from on-site and off-site areas is expected to accumulate
within the storm drain system. This may create anaerobic conditions and produce
odor problems within the development. Further, during early stages of a storm
when this severely degraded dry weather flow finds its way to the Slater
Channel it will adversely impact the quality of water in the downstream
channels.”
The water quality impacts and the odors discussed above conveniently do not appear within the main impact sections of the EIR, and neither are any mitigations offered.
The water quality section of the EIR is ultimately based on
vague promises to do future work in order to meet standards. Vague promises of future planning should not
be a substitute for completed planning in the early stages that can be
evaluated during the approval process.
7.4 Noise
The EIR discloses the various noise impacts resulting from the construction process, but does not analyze the CNEL noise impact of the haul route scenario that uses Graham if the borrow site is not adjacent. This is a glaring deficiency in and of itself and is made worse by the fact that the September 2002 traffic study shows substantially more cars on Graham today. Sound impacts are cumulative, and the impact of added haul truck traffic on top of today’s busier Graham traffic simply hasn’t been analyzed.
Additionally, the project site is located directly under the
landing flight path for
7.5 Public Safety
Given that the Fire Department is only confident (but not certain) that Edwards Station will be capable of meeting response time criteria (within 5 minutes 80% of the time) for the area, we feel that the EIR does not adequately address the impacts to existing residents of amending the General Plan to remove the current fire station designation from the applicant’s property.
The EIR also didn’t consider a development alternative
incorporating a fire station within the project boundaries.
Loyal opposition driving tests to the southernmost existing homes in this area strongly suggest that the Fire Department’s confidence of meeting the 5-minute response time standard is rather dubious, with actual response times more likely to be as much as 6 minutes for both Edwards Station and the proposed relocated Heil Station.
As of this writing (09/19/02), the Fire Department has NOT provided any rebuttal to these unofficial driving tests, either in the form of actual dispatch times or official driving tests all of the way to homes at the southern boundary of the area (rather than just to the intersection of Graham & Slater).
7.6 Egregious Typographical Errors
EIR Volume II Section 5.10 page 5-175 asserts that
8. Requested Changes in Project Conditions
We believe the EIR is deficient and should not be certified. However, if the Planning Commission goes
ahead and certifies the EIR anyway, we would like to see the following
conditions added to the project:
8.1 Traffic
- We
request that a condition be added to implement Circulation Alternative B
in order to provide a second tract entrance/exit to
- We request that a condition be added to fund the installation of a signal at the intersection of Graham & Glenstone to be completed by the time the occupancy permits are issued for the project.
- We
request that a condition be added to add “Keep Intersection Clear”
striping and signage to the intersection of Graham and
- We
request that a condition be added to forbid the use of stop signs for
controlling through traffic on “B” street in order to prevent stop &
go traffic noise from impacting existing residents on the south side of
- We
request that the condition allowing the connection to Greenleaf to be
opened to non-emergency access be contingent upon a City Council public
hearing AND a simple majority vote by residents living in the tract north
of the project site.
8.2 Drainage/Hydrology
- We request that a condition be added to REQUIRE seeking a County permit for installation of the 2 new storm pumps being proposed for this project.
- We request that a condition be added to establish an “Improvement
District” comprised of all parcels within the Parkside project to
provide “all funding whatsoever” for the operation, repair,
replacement, inspection, licensing and/or maintenance in perpetuity
for an Urban Runoff Pump Station (which will pump directly into the
Wintersburg Channel) to be located on or about Lot “O” as shown on the
current Conditional Land Use Plan.
All operations whatsoever concerning the new pump station are to be carried out under license and supervision of the City of Huntington Beach with all costs whatsoever to be borne by the new Improvement District.
The benefits of this alternative are many and obvious:
- Dick Harlow has stated that such a configuration will cost the applicant less money to build.
- A direct connection to the Wintersburg Channel offers superior water quality because the badly polluted Slater Channel will not experience increased pumping as a result of this project.
- Handling
significant new runoff with a new, independent pump station offers better
public safety because the Slater Pump Station will no longer be a single
point of failure.
8.3 Water Quality
- We
request that this project not be approved until the applicant commits in
writing their complete selection of all structural BMPs and the associated
URMP. Water quality is far too
important to proceed on vague promises by a group of people whose initial
plans were proven insufficient.
8.4 Public Safety
- We
request that a condition be added to require the funding and construction
of a fire station on the project site as per the original General Plan
zoning designation if the Fire Department cannot be certain that Edwards
Station and relocated Heil Station will meet the city response time
criteria for all existing homes in the area and the applicant’s new homes.
Sincerely,
Mark D. Bixby
Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration
714-625-0876
attachment