1	Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration
2	The NWWR Vision Acquisition and Re-integration with the Greater Bolsa Chica Ecosystem Restoration of the wetlands, functioning as a Natural Treatment System, Flood Buffer, and Wildlife Habitat Filtration of urban runoff that would otherwise flow into Huntington Harbour
3	IRWD Treatment Wetlands Type I -- Offline Type II -- Inline Type III -- Co-located Within Detention Basins
4	The Shea Parkside Vision: Ill-Conceived and Poorly Planned Loss of wetlands Increased traffic problems Increased flood threat Increased water pollution Threat of home damage by subsidence Fire response deficiencies Numerous other concerns
5	It’s Really a Wetlands! Three parameters for wetlands delineation: Hydric soils Hydrophytic vegetation Consecutive days of ponding water This property exhibits all three. The Coastal Commission only requires just one!
6	Coastal Commission July 3, 2001 letter “Though the area may have contained wetlands in the late 1980’s, the DFG (March 16, 1998) concurred with a wetland evaluation …that the 44 acre City Parcel did not currently meet wetland criteria.”
7	Where’s the 100-foot setback? Coastal Commission July 3, 2001 letter notes the potential for wetlands to exist in the County portion, and mentions the need for a 100- to 300-foot setback buffer May 21, 2002 LSA wetlands delineation study finds potential Commission wetlands in County portion, yet no setback is included in the tract map
8	100-foot setbacks on the County parcel
9	Hydric Soils May 21 2002 LSA report in EIR Documents hydric soils on County portion, but speculatively dismisses the findings: “may be remnants from a time prior to construction of the Wintersburg Channel” “soils exhibiting hydric indicators were deposited on site, and were then intermixed with the native soil during past ground disturbance activities” (i.e. illegal dumping) These assertions cannot be proven! Ignores the likelihood these hydric soils result from current wetlands conditions
10	Hydrophytic Vegetation LSA uses the illegal dumping excuse to dismiss the presence of hydrophytic vegetation on the County portion (cannot be proven!) EIR responses to comments dismiss hydrophytic vegetation by blaming it on seeds laying dormant for years and then suddenly sprouting in unusually wet years (DUH!!!)
11	Consecutive Days of Ponding Water See Dr. Jan Vandersloot’s June 14, 1998 comment letter in EIR Volume III
12	16+ Consecutive Days of Ponding December 7, 1997 – December 22, 1997
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25	45 Consecutive Days of Ponding January 12, 1998 – February 26, 1998
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35	Plus additional omitted photographs taken on the 10 days of January 22-31, 1998
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49	A River Runs Through It (and so does illegal dumping of fill)
50	Things to look for The “ephemeral” channel running through the site, consistently visible over 30 years (only briefly mentioned by EIR) Substantial illegal fill dirt being dumped in the Smoky’s Stables area in order to raise land elevations Correlation to daily rainfall records show consecutive days of ponding in many years (and not just El Nino years!) 8.3ac former EPA-designated wetland Additional ponds adjacent to the Wintersburg
51	12/26/52 - EIR
52	3/24/59 – EIR – ponding 36+ days – way below avg season
53
54
55	6/28/70 - EIR
56	10/26/73 - EIR
57	2/17/75 - EIR
58	12/28/76 - EIR
59
60	12/14/78 – EIR – ponding 31+ days – above avg season
61
62	1/31/81 – EIR – ponding 4+ days – below avg season
63
64
65
66
67
68
69	3/19/86 – EIR – ponding 11+ days – avg season
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83	1/24/92 – EIR – rain 1/3/92 – avg season
84
85	1/3/93 – EIR – rain 12/28/92 – way above avg season
86
87	5/14/93 – EIR – rain 3/26/93 – way above avg season
88	1/3/94 – EIR – rain 12/12/93 – below avg season
89
90
91
92	3/27/95 – EIR – ponding 22+ days – way above avg season
93
94
95
96
97	Total precipitation (inches) for seasons with 18 or more consecutive days of ponding
98	But Shea had a problem -- too much proof of ponding! Solution: Fill in the ponding areas!
99
100
101
102
103
104
105	But the ponding still persisted…
106	March 14, 2001
107	March 18, 2001
108	March 23, 2001
109	The solution to incriminating ponding? More “farming” with bulldozers!
110	March 28, 2001
111	Selective Soil/Water Testing Avoided the “interesting” locations
112	Need Soil Tests in Subsidence Zone
113	Insufficient Testing for PCBs in Soil “No transformers” assumed to mean no PCBs There has been no soil testing to date to check for PCBs This seems grossly irresponsible given the proximity to the confirmed PCB dumping ground at the end of Graham Street CA DTSC has been contacted…
114	Water test pit locations – March 1997
115	Tidally-influenced groundwater
116	LSA Report Inaccurate Regarding “prior converted croplands” EIR erroneously states that in 1992 Army Corps said that there were no wetlands Army Corps really just said that they could not exercise jurisdiction “Prior converted croplands” designation is irrelevant to the Coastal Commission, which uses a different set of definitions
117	Prior Converted Croplands or Farmed Wetlands? Prior Converted Cropland – inundation less than 15 consecutive days Farmed Wetlands – inundation for 15 or more consecutive days (subject to CWA Section 404 regulations) in at least 51% of rain seasons Our current photographic database can prove Farmed Wetlands status in 44% of seasons since 1966-1967
118	A New Wetlands Delineation is Overdue for the City Parcel Delineations are only valid for 5 years, and the last one is getting old: 11/23/96 first site visit (nearly 6 years ago) 07/11/97 amended final draft (over 5 years ago) 11/20/97 last site visit (4 years 11 months ago) 12/17/97 Lisa Kegarice delineation letter sent (4 years 10 months ago)
119	New Delineation Justified by Sloppy Work and New Evidence Coastal Commission has not said they agree with the old delineation Sloppy water table testing the first time New aerial ponding evidence
120	Kegarice used the WRONG delineation manual in 1997! 1987 USACE delineation manual was used Hydric soil info was obsoleted in 1992 1994 Memorandum of Understanding said that the National Food Safety Act Manual (NFSAM) will be used for federal delineations of agricultural land NFSAM updated in 1996 with “Field Indicators of Hydric Soils” A new delineation must be performed using NFSAM!
121	Buried Secrets – July 13, 2001 Or, Indiana Jones and the Storm Drain of Doom
122	The map shows the existing 60” storm drain
123	Shea contractors dug several deep holes near the storm drain
124	Bricks & quick-set mortar were installed down in the holes
125	Public Works denies all knowledge HB DPW initially said it is a County drain County said it is a City drain HB DPW then agreed it is a City drain, but had no idea of what work was being done HB DPW then surmised that Shea was merely confirming the location of the drain But later that night, the truth is discovered!
126	Indiana Jones and The Storm Drain of Doom A member of the loyal opposition enters the storm drain after midnight to explore Apparently there are multiple southerly extensions (leach lines) of this drain running under the Shea property The Shea contractors had bricked off these extensions in order to prevent water from the main drain from flowing under the Shea property
127	The map neglects to mention the leach lines that are now sealed
128	What was Shea up to here? De-watering a wetland whose status is still subject to legitimate debate? Performing work on city storm drains without a permit? Increasing the load on the already overburdened Graham storm drain? Unethical behavior that should not be implicitly sanctioned by the City of HB?
129	Wetlands Summary Proven ponding tendencies (not just El Nino years) Repeated, unpermitted actions by Shea to prevent future ponding Sloppy, improper, no longer valid wetlands delineation of the city parcel EIR should not be certified without a new wetlands delineation for the city parcel
130	Water Quality Issues
131	Hidden Negative Water Quality Impacts Parkside adds significant new runoff to the Slater Channel More frequent Slater pumping will be needed to maintain the -6 ft MSL elevation Slater pollution will enter the Wintersburg Channel more frequently than today Resulting in extra days of pollution for Bolsa Chica & Huntington Harbour
132	Solution: Move the New Pumps to the North Bank of the Wintersburg WIN – costs less to build WIN – doesn’t send extra Slater pollution to Huntington Harbour WIN – superior safety by not relying on Slater Pump Station as a single point of failure WIN – all maintenance expenses whatsoever could be funded via Improvement District
133	What’s that awful smell???
134	September 20^th Coastal Commission letter on water quality “fundamentally flawed” “used inaccurate data and assumptions” “there will not be 45% area-wide reductions” “impacts to Huntington Harbour…have not been fully considered” “impacts to the Bolsa Chica Reserve have [not] been fully considered”
135	Water Pollutant TMDLs are Coming for Huntington Harbour 303(d) pollutant limits will be established in the 2006-2010 timeframe, according to the Santa Ana RWQCB Adding Parkside pollution today will make it harder and more expensive to meet these limits tomorrow HB will be stuck paying the clean-up bill, not Shea!
136	Drainage/Hydrology Issues
137	City/County Disagreement on Slater Pump Station permits Bob Righetti and other city staff insists no permits are needed for the new Shea pumps But the County insists that permits are REQUIRED! 05/27/98 County letter DEIR comment 09/04/02 County letter to Public Works City still denies the permits are required
138	Lack of Cooperation City insists the original 1964 Slater Pump Station permit covers new Shea pumps Though conditions have changed greatly in the past 4 decades, no new permit will be sought from the County The County has ultimate authority over the Wintersburg, a key piece of public safety infrastructure which doesn’t meet modern design standards, and should be consulted
139	Evading the Safety Limits? County required an automated stilling well throttle-back sensor for the Shields Pump Station to protect the Wintersburg No County permit and no such sensor is planned for the Slater Pump Station The Slater Pump Station should be held to the same modern safety standards as the Shields Pump Station!
140	Increased Flood Threat: Another Deficient EIR Analysis Parkside adds to runoff in Slater Channel, so the pump station will be expanded… …but the County may require throttle-back limits to protect the Wintersburg Channel from overflowing Therefore if the Wintersburg is full, the new Slater pumps may not operate, thus increasing the risk of a Slater Channel flood which is not analyzed by the EIR
141	A Questionable FEMA CLOMR
142	Don’t be fooled!
143	Shifting the Flood Risk Parkside runoff north of the Wintersburg will be sent south to the Slater Channel Existing Slater neighborhoods will be at risk during El Nino-class storms at Wintersburg high tide Shifting the risk burden to other neighborhoods is bad public policy, and so are single point of failure designs!
144	EIR Deficiency: Does Not Analyze Any Drainage Alternatives No discussion of the MUCH simpler solution of building a new pump station at Lot O and directly connecting to the Wintersburg Channel All costs whatsoever could be funded by an Improvement District
145	EIR Deficiency: Does Not Analyze Impact to Local Aquifers Seawater intrusion already a problem Paving this property will greatly reduce aquifer recharge from fresh rainwater Seawater intrusion will then worsen Orange County aquifers currently significantly overdrawn due to drought and population increase
146	EIR Deficiency: No Analysis of Impacts of Drainage Failures On Kenilworth Tract Parkside will sit at significantly higher elevation than adjacent Kenilworth tract If there is failure of any component of the Parkside drainage system (i.e. clogged drains, etc), flood conditions will compound for the Kenilworth homes and surroundings EIR does not analyze or mitigate for these failure conditions
147	Sub_sidence Issues
148	Kenilworth Subsidence Zone
149	Patios are cracking
150	Walls are splitting
151	Walls are tilting
152	Walls are sinking…
153	…by as much as 12 inches!
154	Insufficient Protections During Overexcavation & Dewatering Shea insists these techniques are time-tested and won’t harm adjacent homes HB has history of residential subsidence problems Shea promises careful monitoring, but the first signs of trouble may be cracked foundations on Kenilworth homes Shea and/or HB will be held liable for any problems during construction or thereafter If they’re so certain of their mitigation measures they should provide indemnification for any and all casualty loss to existing homeowners
155	Liquefaction Issues
156	Liquefaction: New Threat Caused by Mitigation in Final EIR Liquefaction can occur on any wet, uncompacted sub-strata during a temblor Parkside plans propose a 50’-wide Paseo Park to mitigate vibration and likely subsidence problems sloped toward 22 existing homes on Kenilworth they claim that ‘neither dewatering nor remedial grading will be required…’ made of tens of thousands of cubic yards of fill
157	Liquefaction: New Threat Caused by Mitigation in Final EIR The wet, uncompacted sub-strata together with the new fill would be subject to liquefaction, therefore the whole slope would be at extreme risk for liquefaction and slumping during a temblor, endangering homes on Kenilworth The Final EIR doesn’t account for this newly created and foreseeable problem which is a likely consequence of their proposed mitigation
158	Traffic Issues
159	We Demand a Traffic Study Recount! Data collected during Labor Day week when many people are away on summer vacations (and not driving on HB roads!) OVSD gym EIR says collecting traffic data during “typical weekday peak commute hours” is best (this EIR was the result of a successful court challenge) Holiday weeks are not “typical”! OVSD enrollment was still ramping up
160	OVSD Enrollment Still Ramping Up Some families still on vacation Clueless parents slow to realize school has resumed Incoming transfers from year-round districts with different academic calendars First enrollment statistics not collected until September 27th
161	1997+Project HCM p.28 Southbound Graham at Glenstone
162	2002+Project HCM p.36 Southbound Graham at Glenstone
163	Restriping – a Fraudulent Mitigation The EIR proposes left-turn median striping to mitigate Graham congestion But drivers are already using a de-facto left-turn median of their own creation So painting some extra lines in the middle of Graham won’t change anything! How about conditioning for a traffic signal at Graham & Glenstone instead?
164	Restriping still a bogus mitigation! 2002+Project+Improv HCM p.40
165	Increased Traffic Congestion Graham Street already congested at peak periods Congestion will be worsened by: Marine View gym (in progress) Parkside (proposed) Hearthside/Fieldstone (proposed) “Circulation Alternative B” (exit to Bolsa Chica St) needed to reduce the additional burden on Graham Street!
166	Pressure to open Greenleaf to through traffic Connection to Greenleaf proposed as “emergency only” access But a future City Council could open it up to through traffic, despite 100% Greenleaf opposition Circulation Alternative B (Bolsa Chica St) would remove the Greenleaf temptation and provide suitable emergency access
167	Graham Haul Route Needs Reanalysis September 9^th 2002 traffic study shows significantly more traffic on Graham EIR conclusions about haul route impacts are based on stale 1996 traffic data These impacts of moving up to 285,000 cubic yards of fill need to be reanalyzed
168	Graham & Glenstone Peak Traffic Thursday, February 14, 2002, 7:35AM
169	Glenstone U-turns Friday, September 6, 2002 – 7:33AM
170	Left Turn Trouble at Kenilworth Backups caused by the Parkside signal will create left turn delays when exiting Kenilworth onto northbound Graham Southbound cars waiting at the signal will cause dangerous visibility problems “Keep Intersection Clear” striping won’t solve the visibility problem
171	North Graham from Kenilworth Monday, September 9, 2002 – 7:31AM
172	South Graham from Kenilworth Monday, September 9, 2002 – 7:31AM
173	Fire/Medical Response Issues
174	Planning Commission Decision: Certify the Parkside EIR Based Upon CEQA Compliance Analyzes the potential environmental impacts Identifies project alternatives Identifies mitigation measures to lessen the project’s impacts
175	“Analyzes the potential environmental impacts” (EIR Errata) “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.” “Additional impacts to current response times are anticipated with relocation of the [Heil] fire station. Response time from the new location to the project site would be greater than 5 minutes.” “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.”
176	Edwards Response Time Estimates
177	“Identifies project alternatives” No project/no development Development under existing zoning Alternative location Alternative park site location Alternative roadway connections Reduced density alternatives (4) Development incorporating the existing General Plan fire station designation is NOT included in EIR!
178	Keep the General Plan Fire Station Designation! HB General Plan clearly shows the Graham/Slater area to be emergency response deficient. Recent H.B.F.D. tests have not proved otherwise; so much for “exceptional degree of overlapping coverage” from Warner, Edwards, and “Relocated” Heil stations. G.P. Policy P.F. 2.1.1 “Locate fire stations in a manner which will enable fire response times to meet a five minute standard, 80% of the time.” Graham/Slater residents are just as entitled to prompt emergency service as other residents!
179	Types of Calls to H.B.F.D. (by percentage)
180	Parkside EIR fails on All 3 Counts: It does NOT adequately analyze the potential Public Services environmental impacts to surrounding homes. It does NOT identify a project alternative incorporating a fire station. It does NOT identify mitigation measures to lessen the project’s Response Time impacts to surrounding homes, nor does it identify any medical safety mitigations.
181	Aesthetics/Light and Glare Issues
182	Headlight Mitigation Too Slow Car headlights on project streets will shine into Kenilworth homes Paseo Park will be landscaped to block this light But these trees won’t be planted until construction is completed in 4 years The trees won’t reach mature headlight-blocking heights for another 5 years
183	Noise Issues
184	Graham Street Haul Route Impact Needs Reevaluation September 9^th traffic study shows substantially more existing traffic (and thus noise) on Graham If the adjacent Bolsa Chica mesa cannot be used for the fill borrow site, Graham will be used as the haul route EIR needs to reevaluate Graham haul route noise impacts in light of higher traffic levels
185	Construction Schedule Will Impact Retirees and Telecommuters City construction schedule is Monday – Saturday, 7AM – 8PM Impacts to retirees, telecommuters, and swing shift workers, stay-at-home moms, children and care-givers are not discussed The proposed mitigation measures will not reduce the impacts for these classes of residents
186	Aircraft Noise Impacts Omitted Neighborhood is under the Long Beach / Los Alamitos landing flight paths Military and commercial aircraft fly low enough to read tail logos Beach banner aircraft also present during summer months EIR does not factor any of this aircraft noise into its CNEL impact calculations
187	On Final Approach to Long Beach
188	Suggested Conditions of Approval to Reduce the Negative Impacts
189	Suggested Conditions of Approval Traffic Require a secondary entrance/exit Require signalization of Graham & Glenstone Forbid the use of stop signs on “B” street to reduce noise impacts to adjacent Kenilworth homes Hold Shea to their repeated promises to convey property rights to Kenilworth / Greenleaf homeowners to give them control of access, preventing opening of Greenleaf Lane to through traffic.
190	Suggested Conditions of Approval Drainage/Hydrology Conditions Seeking a County permit for new storm pumps must be REQUIRED (the current phrase “necessary permits” leaves too much wiggle room) Install the new pumps at Lot O for direct connect to the Wintersburg Channel, with all costs whatsoever funded by an Improvement District
191	Process Issues
192	Accuracy Counts! Invalid maps at study sessions Missing sections from Final EIR Contradictory statements remain in Final EIR Egregious typos (“4 miles to Marine View”) Half-baked fire response testing Stale, fantasy traffic data Botched staff report distribution Staff in denial regarding County permit requirements for Slater Pump Station
193	But wait, there’s more… Frequent release of significant new information as “Late Communications” Bob Righetti of HB DPW refusing to return e-mails and voice mails Dean Albright’s traffic maps withheld from agenda packet by Scott Hess
194	Conclusions
195	It’s Simply a Bad Project with a Bad EIR! It’s a fundamentally unbuildable wetland Too many negative impacts on existing neighborhoods; Existing homeowners need better protection and indemnification against damage/loss Too many omitted impacts and non-mitigations in the contradictory, error-laden, deficient Final EIR Fails to fulfill 7 of 10 City Goals stated in 1996 GP