Shea Parkside Issues of Concern

Last updated September 2, 2005

Issues Being Raised With the Coastal Commission

Please visit the following web pages for key biological/hydrological data pertaining to the issues on this page:

Ponding 1958-2005
Wetland indicator vegetation (including Southern Tarplant)
Birds (including sensitive raptor species and federal-threatened California Gnatcatchers)
Butterflies (Wandering Skippers, a federal species of concern)
Fairy shrimp

On to the issues...

WETLAND VEGETATION -- the land meets the California definition of a wetlands due to the presence of well over two dozen different wetland indicator vegetation species. Development of the project would violate Coastal Act Section 30233.
PROLONGED PONDING -- the land meets the California definitions of a wetlands due to prolonged surface ponding evident in both recent and historical photographs. Development of the project would violate Coastal Act Section 30233.
REPEATING GRADING WITHOUT A PERMIT -- the land contours have been greatly altered over the years in order to reduce the ponding. See the December 2002 incident and the June 2003 incident.
SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES INDICATIVE OF ESHA -- Wandering skippers (Panoquina errans), a federal Species of Concern, have been found on the property, plus various sensitive bird species (Large-Billed Savannah Sparrows, California Gnatcatchers, and assorted special-status raptors), plus the CNPS 1B rare plant species Southern Tarplant, as well as plentiful fairy shrimp. Development of the project would violate Coastal Act Section 30240.
MISLEADING FLOOD STUDY -- FEMA agrees that the Shea flood study may be inaccurate due to silt and vegetation accumlations in the Wintersburg Channel.

And more...

Other Issues Raised Prior to City Approval in September 2002

INCREASED URBAN RUNOFF -- The developer promises to specify an enhanced treatment system for their urban runoff shortly before the final grading permits are issued and after the last chance for public input has passed (and we are supposed to trust this promise?). Regardless of the efficiency of this system, there will still be an increase in the number of days that polluted urban runoff flows from the Slater Channel into the Wintersburg Channel and out through Huntington Harbour (an impact NOT disclosed in the EIR) because:

Unfiltered urban runoff from existing neighborhoods enters the Slater Channel, which is essentially a linear lake at its western terminus where the only outflow is through the Slater Pump Station...
During dry and low-flow conditions, the water surface elevation in the channel seldom rises high enough to trigger the outflow pumps...
But water also exits through evaporation, causing the heavier pollutants that are left behind to become very concentrated...
Until moderate- or high-flow conditions when the extra Shea runoff will increase the chances of the outflow pumps activating...
And once the outflow pumps activate, the accumulated and concentrated urban runoff will be pumped into the Wintersburg Channel...

Therefore because the extra Shea runoff will result in more frequent pumping into the Wintersburg Channel, there will be more days of increased pollution compared to current patterns!

INCREASED FLOOD THREAT -- The developer brags about the extra drainage improvements they are going to install to serve neighborhoods north of the project site, but conveniently neglects to mention a very real increased flood potential for neighborhoods south of the project:

The original Slater Pump Station permit was issued to the City by the County way back in 1964 when the first 2 pumps were installed. The City sought an update to the County permit in 1967 when pump 3 was installed. However, the City did not seek a County permit for pumps 4 and 5, and does not plan to seek a permit for the developer's new pumps 6 and 7. The City's interpretation is that the original 1964 permit is good in perpetuity and covers all future expansions of the Slater Pump Station. We disagree, and have made our feelings known to the County. When parties such as the City and the County fail to cooperate regarding their shared responsibility for the Wintersburg Channel, the potential for trouble exists. To ensure all parties are on the same wavelength, the City should seek formal County permit approval for the developer's new pumps.
If the City obtains a County permit for the developer's new pumps, it is likely that the County will 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 if a County permit is obtained. 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.
If the Slater Pump Station throttle-back has not been factored in to the recent FEMA CLOMR , then the base flood elevations mentioned therein become suspect and form the basis for an appeal. See the comment letter that I sent to FEMA, followed by FEMA's response.

POOR URBAN PLANNING -- The developer wants to tunnel under the Wintersburg Channel to send the urban runoff to the Slater Pump Station which will then pump it into the Wintersburg Channel. Why go to all of this extra effort when it would be far simpler to directly pump through the northern bank of the Wintersburg Channel adjacent to the Shea property? Why funnel everything into the Slater Pump Station which constitutes a single point of failure?
INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION -- This development and its single entrance/exit on Graham Street will increase traffic which is already pretty bad during the school year when parents are dropping off and picking up their children. Watch the traffic video clips on the Multimedia page! Graham Street traffic is already forecast to increase because of the Marine View gym project, and will increase even further once Hearthside develops the "Fieldstone" property at the southern terminus of Graham. Of particular concern:

The intersection of Graham and Glenstone is already congested (sometimes severely) during peak periods. This intersection is controlled by 4-way stop signs. The development will only worsen this congestion.
Residents exiting eastbound Kenilworth and turning left onto northbound Graham already experience delays in making a very difficult left turn during peak periods. By putting in a signal approximately 200 feet south on Graham for the proposed tract entrance, cars will queue up on southbound Graham waiting for the light to change from red to green. This queue will be long enough to block entry and exit to and from Kenilworth, as well as creating dangerous visiblity problems (even if "keep intersection clear" striping is used).
The EIR relies on traffic counts from 1994 and 1996, plus some extrapolations for nearby projects built since 1996. This generally stale data does not account for current area traffic congestion that has increased over the past 6-8 years.

SUB-STANDARD FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIMES -- This area currently does not meet Huntington Beach Fire Department response time standards. Furthermore, the city has plans to move the current closest fire station farther away, resulting in even worse response times. But wait, it gets better! The city General Plan currently calls for a new fire station to be located on the Shea property. However, this planned fire station will be deleted from the General Plan if the Shea project is approved. This city says that this deletion was planned long ago independently of the Shea project, however this statement would be more believable if the city actually deleted the fire station years ago instead of making the General Plan change part of the Shea approval process. The Shea EIR mitigates the response time risk on their property by adding built-in fire sprinklers to their homes, but the EIR says nothing about the risk to surrounding neighborhoods and makes no attempt at off-site mitigations to compensate for the loss of the General Plan fire station.
EIR DEFICIENCIES -- The EIR suffers from several deficiencies which warrant rejection of the EIR in its current form:

Stale traffic data dating from 1994 and 1996. Traffic conditions for 2002 can only be measured by a new traffic study that counts actual vehicles.
No mention of the increased number of pumping days by the Slater Pump Station, resulting more days where urban runoff pollution is pumped into the Wintersburg Channel to flow down into Huntington Harbour.
No discussion of the sub-standard fire response time risk to existing neighborhoods, and no mitigations proposed to compensate for the loss of the General Plan fire station on the Shea property.

Powerpoint Presentations

Want to get up to speed quickly on the issues? Then take a look at these Powerpoint presentations which include speaker notes:

The long version -- covers all significant issues, suitable for 1-on-1 meetings with public officials. An HTML version is also available.
The short version -- covers the most important issues, can be delivered in 3 minutes at public hearings. An HTML version is also available.
The California Coastal Commission version -- emphasizes water quality issues, can be delivered in 2 minutes at public hearings. An HTML version is also available.

Excessive Fill -- Details

The EIR goes into great detail regarding the new sight lines from the existing back fences of the homes on Kenilworth which back up against the Shea property. In addition to the cross-section diagrams below, the EIR also includes computer-simulated photo-realistic sight lines of the completed development (not reproduced here).

The plans 11 feet of fill may have been rendered moot by the recently issued FEMA CLOMR which implies that only 5.7 feet of fill will be needed. But the CLOMR may be based upon faulty assumptions regarding the Slater Pump Station capacity, so until this question is resolved, our concern about the fill levels remains. See the comment letter that I sent to FEMA.